The Bible says the soul that sins it will die but people say no, they have eternal life so even babies should burn in hell...
old man joe
they conclude this by a single parable of Holy Scripture found in Luke 16... the parable
of the rich man and Lazarus.
we know Lk. 16 is a parable since the context of that occasion in which Jesus tells the
parable actually begins in Lk. chapter 15:1. in v. 3 God declares the context to be in
parabolic language. the context changes in Lk. 17:1.
interestingly enough, the Bible says plainly that Abraham died and was buried in Gen. 25.
somehow, without ever receiving his glorified spiritual body, which comes at the Rapture
of all elect believer's with the exception of Moses, Elijah, Enoch and those raised from
the dead the moment Jesus died who've received their's, the rich man spoken of in this
parable " seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. " amazing that so many read
into this parable by denominational tradition neglecting the rest of what the Bible has to
say about what happens when the unbeliever expires.
not only did Abraham not yet receive his glorified spiritual body but the rich man, in
order to be alive beyond the grave, must have eternal life so as to burn in hell forever
and ever. and he must have his glorified spiritual body as well since the human body can
not possibly endue fire without returning to it's native elements of carbon, iron,
magnesium and so on. no where does the Bible teach an unbeliever receives a spiritual
body anymore than it teaches he is given eternal life.
proponents of this view can not find a single statement not taken out of context by a
bogus translation of Holy Scripture and show where God says the unbeliever has eternal
life. the philosophy of denominational tradition tells them so but not God's Word, the
Bible.
is the Lord Jesus Christ referring to a seance where the dead are in a spirit world having
conversations with other spirit's ? that's what the perverter's of this parable are
really suggesting ever so subtly. they see the dead as having conversations with the
living, dead and buried as they are, bargaining with them over life eternal for someone
else though all the while not having had such concerns while they were alive.
furthermore, there is mercy only with the Living God, how is it then that this rich man is
asking Abraham for mercy ? the context is a parable and not a proof text where God throws
little babies in a burning, tormenting hell for all eternity. the wages of sin is death
and the soul who sins will die... not being given eternal life nor a glorified spiritual
body so as to endue a burning, tormenting hell forever.
the parable is teaching a lesson that those left behind will be weeping and gnashing teeth
as they find they've waisted their lives on folly on that day of the Rapture which
coincides with the first Day of Judgement, rather than seeking the Lord while He may be
found.
Michael James
take a trip to a burn unit in a local hospital..then ask yourself
whether this is not hell we're living in.
duke
>they conclude this by a single parable of Holy Scripture found in Luke 16... the parable
> of the rich man and Lazarus.
It's clear from NT Scripture that Laz a) did not die with the sin that leads to
death, and b) was not in hell but purgatory, as hell is a one way trip.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
vince garcia
>
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:02:02 -0500, old man joe <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >they conclude this by a single parable of Holy Scripture found in Luke 16... the parable
> > of the rich man and Lazarus.
>
> It's clear from NT Scripture that Laz a) did not die with the sin that leads to
> death, and b) was not in hell but purgatory, as hell is a one way trip.
But the vision doesn't fit with the doctrine of purgatory. There is no
indication of the beatific vision, and no indication lazarus (or
abraham) was being purified from his propensity to sin, or that he was
being punished for past veniel sins. It fits instead eph 4:8-11, where
Christ goes down and brings the righteous dead up to heaven with him
after the cross
Vince Garcia, unhypenated-American with no tolerence for political
correctness, or racial or religious sensitivity
Patrick
The Bible says the soul that sins it will die but people say no, they have
eternal life so even babies should burn in hell...
No, it doesn't. Stop lying.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
as it is written of him:
but woe to that man by whom
the Son of man is betrayed!
good were it for that man
if he had never been born.
Mr 9:44 - Where their worm dieth not,
and the fire is not quenched.
Mr 9:46 - Where their worm dieth not,
and the fire is not quenched.
Mr 9:48 - Where their worm dieth not,
and the fire is not quenched.
Patrick
>
> Mr 9:44 - Where their worm dieth not,
What is this "Mr"?
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote
The Gospel of Mark.
Jim
Mr 16:6 - And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus
of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold
the place where they laid him.
duke
wrote:
>duke wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:02:02 -0500, old man joe <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >they conclude this by a single parable of Holy Scripture found in Luke 16... the parable
>> > of the rich man and Lazarus.
>>
>> It's clear from NT Scripture that Laz a) did not die with the sin that leads to
>> death, and b) was not in hell but purgatory, as hell is a one way trip.
>But the vision doesn't fit with the doctrine of purgatory. There is no
>indication of the beatific vision, and no indication lazarus (or
>abraham) was being purified from his propensity to sin, or that he was
>being punished for past veniel sins. It fits instead eph 4:8-11, where
>Christ goes down and brings the righteous dead up to heaven with him
>after the cross
Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? It was not hell, for
that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
man to know.
Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
vince garcia
>
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 04:50:47 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:02:02 -0500, old man joe <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >they conclude this by a single parable of Holy Scripture found in Luke 16... the parable
> >> > of the rich man and Lazarus.
> >>
> >> It's clear from NT Scripture that Laz a) did not die with the sin that leads to
> >> death, and b) was not in hell but purgatory, as hell is a one way trip.
>
> >But the vision doesn't fit with the doctrine of purgatory. There is no
> >indication of the beatific vision, and no indication lazarus (or
> >abraham) was being purified from his propensity to sin, or that he was
> >being punished for past veniel sins. It fits instead eph 4:8-11, where
> >Christ goes down and brings the righteous dead up to heaven with him
> >after the cross
>
> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them?
Not sure what you mean. THE resurrection is yet to come. The righteous
dead in spirit were in abraham's bosom.
If you mean 'raised' in the sense of taking them to heaven after the
crucifixion, they were in sheol, where all souls were, with those in
covenant with God in a good part of it, and the unrighteous in a bad
part of it.
Peter alludes to it:
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but
quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God
waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few,
that is, eight souls were saved by water.
And paul as well:
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity
captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first
into the lower parts of the earth?
It was not hell, for
> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
> man to know.
We can make a reasonable surmise. What we can reasonable infer was that
it was a holding tank of some sort
>
> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
Purgatory is a problematic doctrine. For one, it comes out of judaism,
and is not expressly taught in the Bible at all. Some NT inferences are
made that the process exists, and some of those inferences may have some
merit, but the way the RCC defines it does not seem to hold up to
scripture.
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all
be changed,
__In a moment__, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the
trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we
shall be changed.
No room for purgatory there.
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the
body, and to be present with the Lord.
9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be
accepted of him.
No room for purgatory there; in fact, every verse that talks about
leaving the physical life and being with God omits any mention of a
transitionary state of purgatory.
Take elijah or enoch. One ascends straight to heaven, and the other is
taken to be with God. No hint of purgatory. In fact, purgatory hadn't
even been established yet since the atonement of christ and indwelling
of the Spirit had yet to occur.
whether there is some sort of perfection of the soul after death may be
debatable, but the way the RCC expands and defines the doctrine is not
only unsubstantiated by scripture, but seems to contradict the
scripture.
I took an RCIA class in the 90s, and they suggested that new thinking on
the subject was that purgatory was an instantaneous process for the
soul. If the RCC did go in that direction, the doctrine would be much
more reasonable. But if we just leave it as it stands, and make it a
prolonged period of suffering and purification that can be affected by
saying masses for the dead, or applying indulgences and such, you're
left with a really flawed to false doctrine that won't stand up to
biblical scrutiny, and has to be accepted only under the (bad)
assumption that the teaching magisterium is incapable of error. Well,
it's not too hard to refute some doctrines of the magisterium by the
actual scripture (romans 10 and its denial that non-christians who never
hear and accept the gospel have any chance at dying in a state of grace
and making heaven is one case); and if one doctrine of the magisterium
can be shown to be in error, the whole system collapses
Patrick
news:bc59ea82-046b-43dd...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Mark? ..........
Lets get back to mrrrr 9:44--48....
It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go
into Gehenna, 10 into the unquenchable fire.
44
45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to
enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna.
47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better for you to
enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown
into Gehenna,
48 where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'
RWKnapp
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 04:50:47 -0800, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:02:02 -0500, old man joe <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >they conclude this by a single parable of Holy Scripture found in Luke 16... the parable
> >> > of the rich man and Lazarus.
>
> >> It's clear from NT Scripture that Laz a) did not die with the sin that leads to
> >> death, and b) was not in hell but purgatory, as hell is a one way trip.
> >But the vision doesn't fit with the doctrine of purgatory. There is no
> >indication of the beatific vision, and no indication lazarus (or
> >abraham) was being purified from his propensity to sin, or that he was
> >being punished for past veniel sins. It fits instead eph 4:8-11, where
> >Christ goes down and brings the righteous dead up to heaven with him
> >after the cross
>
> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? It was not hell, for
> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
> man to know.
>
> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
The Catholic church uses the term purgatory, the story of laz was in
Paradise before the resurrection, as Hell was also in that one place
understood as the place of the dead and they could see each other.
The gulf was wide and so one could not pass from one to the other, no
limbo no second chance to get to heaven. After the resurrection we
see taking the keys of Hell and the grave and now it is in Heaven one
dies they are judged to hell or heaven. To have another chance is to
deny the Christ the son of Mary, an insult to her, and to Jesus. In
life we choose, after death it is too late. So nothing is outrageous
to reject what never was and is not found in the Bible. It was as
Martin Luther said it was a scam of the priest to earn money and get
money from ignorant people as only the priest could read the bible and
only the priest in that day had the write to say what is doctrine and
what was not.
Luke 16:22-31
22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to
Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being
in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off,
and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 "Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and
send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool
my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said,
'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things,
and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are
tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a
great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you
cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.'
27 "Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send
him to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may
testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.' 29
Abraham said to him,'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear
them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them
from the dead, they will repent.' 31 But he said to him,'If they do
not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though
one rise from the dead.'"
NKJV
UP INTO PRADADISE NOT IN HADES OR WHERE LIZ WAS AS THAT PLACE IS UP
AND IN HEAVEN NOW.
2 Cor 12:3-5
4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words,
which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
NKJV
The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
in Scripture. It was and still is a money getter, pay for prayers,
pay for Mass, pray for souls in a place that is not real. When one
dies then comes the Judgement not another shot at heaven.
Rom 6:20-23
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to
righteousness. 21 What fruit did you have then in the things of which
you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now
having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you
have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the
wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ
Jesus our Lord. NKJV
Raymond
www.pioneers-for-jesus.org
duke
wrote:
>duke wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 04:50:47 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >duke wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:02:02 -0500, old man joe <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >they conclude this by a single parable of Holy Scripture found in Luke 16... the parable
>> >> > of the rich man and Lazarus.
>> >>
>> >> It's clear from NT Scripture that Laz a) did not die with the sin that leads to
>> >> death, and b) was not in hell but purgatory, as hell is a one way trip.
>>
>> >But the vision doesn't fit with the doctrine of purgatory. There is no
>> >indication of the beatific vision, and no indication lazarus (or
>> >abraham) was being purified from his propensity to sin, or that he was
>> >being punished for past veniel sins. It fits instead eph 4:8-11, where
>> >Christ goes down and brings the righteous dead up to heaven with him
>> >after the cross
>>
>> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them?
>Not sure what you mean. THE resurrection is yet to come. The righteous
>dead in spirit were in abraham's bosom.
I disagree. THE resurrection was 2000 years ago when the righteous that died
were raised to new life. That means heaven.
Matthew 27:51-52 (New International Version)
51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of
many holy people who had died were raised to life.
>If you mean 'raised' in the sense of taking them to heaven after the
>crucifixion, they were in sheol, where all souls were, with those in
>covenant with God in a good part of it, and the unrighteous in a bad
>part of it.
I disagree.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
The Latin infernus (inferum, inferi), the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew sheol
correspond to the word hell.
>Peter alludes to it:
>18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
>that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but
>quickened by the Spirit:
>19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
Called hades/sheol
>20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God
>waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few,
>that is, eight souls were saved by water.
>And paul as well:
>8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity
>captive, and gave gifts unto men.
>9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first
>into the lower parts of the earth?
Yep, Jesus collected the souls of the just in God and raised them to life. Now,
even if that means purgatory, which is the stopover for the saved, they have
been raised to life.
>> It was not hell, for
>> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
>> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
>> man to know.
>We can make a reasonable surmise. What we can reasonable infer was that
>it was a holding tank of some sort
Do you not believe that we are now in the kingdom of God, having been buried
with Christ to sin in baptism as the 2nd coming of Christ occurred 2000 years
ago?
>> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
>> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>Purgatory is a problematic doctrine. For one, it comes out of judaism,
>and is not expressly taught in the Bible at all.
Sure it is, in 2Mac12:40 as well as the purification of the souls according to:
Purgatory:
Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
1Cor 3:13
13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.
It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's
work.
Now here's the kicker.
Matthew 12
32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone
who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or
in the age to come.
What age to come? "Speaking against the Son of Man" forgiven in the age to come
and "nothing unclean will enter heaven" are contradictory terms in scripture if
there is nothing in between; ie, a state of purging of the sin nature.
Note:
Speaking against the Son of Man (man) can be forgiven in the next age. Anyone
who speaks against the Holy Spirit (God) will not be forgiven in the next age.
Now Rev 21:27 says: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�". That means there is
an age to come that is short of heaven because sins can be forgiven there
whereas no sin enters heaven.
>Some NT inferences are
>made that the process exists, and some of those inferences may have some
>merit, but the way the RCC defines it does not seem to hold up to
>scripture.
>Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all
>be changed,
>__In a moment__, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the
>trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we
>shall be changed.
>No room for purgatory there.
I gave you more verses.
>whether there is some sort of perfection of the soul after death may be
>debatable, but the way the RCC expands and defines the doctrine is not
>only unsubstantiated by scripture, but seems to contradict the
>scripture.
We are all in sin the day we die according to Heb 4:15 and 1 John 1:8-10.
>I took an RCIA class in the 90s, and they suggested that new thinking on
>the subject was that purgatory was an instantaneous process for the
>soul. If the RCC did go in that direction, the doctrine would be much
>more reasonable. But if we just leave it as it stands, and make it a
>prolonged period of suffering and purification that can be affected by
>saying masses for the dead
Masses for and prayers for are rewarded since before the beginning of time. God
cannot be negotiated with.
>, or applying indulgences and such, you're
>left with a really flawed to false doctrine that won't stand up to
>biblical scrutiny, and has to be accepted only under the (bad)
>assumption that the teaching magisterium is incapable of error. Well,
>it's not too hard to refute some doctrines of the magisterium by the
>actual scripture (romans 10 and its denial that non-christians who never
>hear and accept the gospel have any chance at dying in a state of grace
>and making heaven is one case); and if one doctrine of the magisterium
>can be shown to be in error, the whole system collapses
Scripture does not say that one must know of and accept the gospel to be
accepted by God. The new commandment is that we love one another as he loves
us. John 13:34. This is the reason those that never heard of Jesus can be
saved - much to the chagrin that those that think they are saved cross paths at
death.
duke
>> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? �It was not hell, for
>> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
>> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
>> man to know.
>> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. �Yet they can't respond to the case of
>> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>The Catholic church uses the term purgatory, the story of laz was in
>Paradise before the resurrection, as Hell was also in that one place
>understood as the place of the dead and they could see each other.
Purgatory = supposed place of purging. The new Christians had to be made to
understand.
>The gulf was wide and so one could not pass from one to the other, no
>limbo no second chance to get to heaven.
Limbo is another issue to purgatory. And it's all very simple. Live in the
spirit of Christ and the door is open. Play God and you'll find A&E as next
door neighbors.
> After the resurrection we
>see taking the keys of Hell and the grave and now it is in Heaven one
>dies they are judged to hell or heaven.
Wrong. The Mortal sinner go directly at death.
>Luke 16:22-31
>22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to
>Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being
>in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off,
>and Lazarus in his bosom.
There you go, the begger lived is the spirit and the rich man didn't.
>The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
>in Scripture.
Don't be so stupid. The Catholic Church is not only the Church that Christ
founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church that most fully follows
scripture and locked in on the bible.
vince garcia
>
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:45:31 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 04:50:47 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >duke wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:02:02 -0500, old man joe <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >they conclude this by a single parable of Holy Scripture found in Luke 16... the parable
> >> >> > of the rich man and Lazarus.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's clear from NT Scripture that Laz a) did not die with the sin that leads to
> >> >> death, and b) was not in hell but purgatory, as hell is a one way trip.
> >>
> >> >But the vision doesn't fit with the doctrine of purgatory. There is no
> >> >indication of the beatific vision, and no indication lazarus (or
> >> >abraham) was being purified from his propensity to sin, or that he was
> >> >being punished for past veniel sins. It fits instead eph 4:8-11, where
> >> >Christ goes down and brings the righteous dead up to heaven with him
> >> >after the cross
> >>
> >> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them?
>
> >Not sure what you mean. THE resurrection is yet to come. The righteous
> >dead in spirit were in abraham's bosom.
>
> I disagree. THE resurrection was 2000 years ago when the righteous that died
> were raised to new life.
Guess I'll let paul speak to that claim then:
16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more
ungodliness.
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and
Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is
past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
That means heaven.
>
> Matthew 27:51-52 (New International Version)
> 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
> The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of
> many holy people who had died were raised to life.
As you are an educated catholic, I assume you know that while the bible
does not say what became of these saints, the gospel of nicodemus says
they returned to their graves 3 days later, and I suspect that most
catholic scholars would take that view.
But even if you don't, I don't see how you can say THIS was the
resurrection given the fact that folks have died and been awaiting
resurrection for 2000 years since, and certainly paul's words to the
thessalonians are speaking of a future event
>
> >If you mean 'raised' in the sense of taking them to heaven after the
> >crucifixion, they were in sheol, where all souls were, with those in
> >covenant with God in a good part of it, and the unrighteous in a bad
> >part of it.
>
> I disagree.
>
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
> The Latin infernus (inferum, inferi), the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew sheol
> correspond to the word hell.
But HELL isn't the place of eternal perdition. That's the lake of fire
spoken of in revelation. The hades/sheol spoken of is the abode of the
dead before the judgment. I know we commonly use it as an
all-encompassing word for eternal perdition, but technically it's the
place one would go to BEFORE judgment.
So the rich man is in "hell", yes, but he still has the lake of fire
awaiting him, which is much worse.
>
> >Peter alludes to it:
>
> >18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
> >that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but
> >quickened by the Spirit:
> >19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
>
> Called hades/sheol
>
> >20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God
> >waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few,
> >that is, eight souls were saved by water.
>
> >And paul as well:
>
> >8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity
> >captive, and gave gifts unto men.
> >9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first
> >into the lower parts of the earth?
>
> Yep, Jesus collected the souls of the just in God and raised them to life. Now,
> even if that means purgatory, which is the stopover for the saved, they have
> been raised to life.
Are you saying that pope john paul (or any righteous departed catholic)
has a resurrected physical body at this time?
I'm not understanding your exact doctrine on this
>
> >> It was not hell, for
> >> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
> >> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
> >> man to know.
>
> >We can make a reasonable surmise. What we can reasonable infer was that
> >it was a holding tank of some sort
>
> Do you not believe that we are now in the kingdom of God, having been buried
> with Christ to sin in baptism as the 2nd coming of Christ occurred 2000 years
> ago?
No, I'm a futurist, so i believe that we are in 'the age of the church'
for lack of a better term off the top of my head, and that the fulness
of the messianic age will come as follows
luke 21
24And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away
captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the
Gentiles, _____until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.____
(Hasn't happened yet; we're still in the times of the gentiles)
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the
stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea
and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those
things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be
shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power
and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift
up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
THEN the messianic age starts, in my view
>
> >> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
> >> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>
> >Purgatory is a problematic doctrine. For one, it comes out of judaism,
> >and is not expressly taught in the Bible at all.
>
> Sure it is, in 2Mac12:40 as well as the purification of the souls according to:
There is a bit of a problem there. It doen't really mention purgatory,
and the prayers for the dead were made for idolatrous jews who (being
idolotrous) died in mortal sin, for which purgatory can't save you.
You also have a situation where Jesus hadn't atoned for mankind yet, so
purgatory would do them no good because they could not leave it for
heaven since Jesus hadn't come yet.
So I acknowledge this passage reflects an accurate record of the
practice and belief of the jews that prayers and alms on behalf of the
dead could help atone for their sins (which many jews still believe
today), but those teachings are problematic, and to extrapolate
purgatory from them is a also bit problematical.
I think a much stronger argument could be made from heb 12:23, which is
very close--and virtually a proof text--for the basic doctrine of a
soul's purification after death. But then when weighed against the rest
of the NT, the way the RCC actually defines that process doesn't seem to
meld well.
>
> Purgatory:
>
> Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
> Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
> Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
> Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
>
> 1Cor 3:13
> 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.
> It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's
> work.
>
> Now here's the kicker.
>
> Matthew 12
> 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone
> who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or
> in the age to come.
>
> What age to come? "Speaking against the Son of Man" forgiven in the age to come
> and "nothing unclean will enter heaven" are contradictory terms in scripture if
> there is nothing in between; ie, a state of purging of the sin nature.
That is certainly one way to look at it. But another would be to look at
the context of what is actually going on in the passage. In the context
there, knowledgeable Jewish elders have seen a divine miracle, and
despite knowing in their hearts it is of God, attribute that miracle to
the devil simply because they reject the Messenger. This may be what
Jesus seems to say is unforgivable, and it may be unforgivable because
it is not repentable: someone who has committed it has no concern over
it, no desire to repent, and no desire to seek forgiveness, since that
ability comes from the Holy Spirit's conviction in the first place.
So you can make the argument the RCC way, but as is so often the case
with purgatory arguments, it does not seem to be that strong, nor does
it exclude other arguments
>
> Note:
>
> Speaking against the Son of Man (man) can be forgiven in the next age. Anyone
> who speaks against the Holy Spirit (God) will not be forgiven in the next age.
>
> Now Rev 21:27 says: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�". That means there is
> an age to come that is short of heaven because sins can be forgiven there
> whereas no sin enters heaven.
ok
>
> >Some NT inferences are
> >made that the process exists, and some of those inferences may have some
> >merit, but the way the RCC defines it does not seem to hold up to
> >scripture.
>
> >Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all
> >be changed,
> >__In a moment__, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the
> >trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we
> >shall be changed.
> >No room for purgatory there.
>
> I gave you more verses.
Yes. And i even gave YOU one that can be used :)
I think the better question is whether pugatory-- as the RCC defines it
-- could exist. I think the totality of scripture indicates no, but that
the eastern orthodox view would be a bit closer to the scripture, while
still not clearly establising the doctrine
>
> >whether there is some sort of perfection of the soul after death may be
> >debatable, but the way the RCC expands and defines the doctrine is not
> >only unsubstantiated by scripture, but seems to contradict the
> >scripture.
>
> We are all in sin the day we die according to Heb 4:15 and 1 John 1:8-10.
>
> >I took an RCIA class in the 90s, and they suggested that new thinking on
> >the subject was that purgatory was an instantaneous process for the
> >soul. If the RCC did go in that direction, the doctrine would be much
> >more reasonable. But if we just leave it as it stands, and make it a
> >prolonged period of suffering and purification that can be affected by
> >saying masses for the dead
>
> Masses for and prayers for are rewarded since before the beginning of time. God
> cannot be negotiated with.
>
> >, or applying indulgences and such, you're
> >left with a really flawed to false doctrine that won't stand up to
> >biblical scrutiny, and has to be accepted only under the (bad)
> >assumption that the teaching magisterium is incapable of error. Well,
> >it's not too hard to refute some doctrines of the magisterium by the
> >actual scripture (romans 10 and its denial that non-christians who never
> >hear and accept the gospel have any chance at dying in a state of grace
> >and making heaven is one case); and if one doctrine of the magisterium
> >can be shown to be in error, the whole system collapses
>
> Scripture does not say that one must know of and accept the gospel to be
> accepted by God.
Paul indicates it very clearly in romans 10, and this is where the RCC
totally blows it with their doctrine that it's possible for someone who
never hears the gospel to somehow cooperate well enough with the grace
God gives him that he can die in a state of salvation:
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in
thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the
same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and
how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall
they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How
beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and
bring glad tidings of good things!
See? The pagan MUST have a missionary explain the gospel to him so he
can accept it and have salvation. He CAN'T have enough grace to
cooperate with that somehow he dies in a state of grace for a Lord he
has never heard of and called on. The RCC says he can, but the bible
teaches something else
By the way, the catholic church I grew up in the 50-60s taught everyone
but catholics were certainly going to hell.Period. At least, the
catholic churches i knew did.
RWKnapp
Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact. Ask any Greek
Orthodox priest and he will let you know real quick. The Church which
today is Universal but the Roman by its name is only a church from
Rome. So don't you be so stupid, then I gave you what the Holy Bible
said, and you cut it out to make your false teachings fool the
readers. Then most followers belong to the protestant and Orthodox
church that is as large in number as the billion catholic churches
worldwide, that means only 50 percent of the followers of the Holy
Bible are not Roman Catholics. What other falsehoods do you believe?
For one thing the true Church would never have image in their church
which without them the Catholic Church would be nothing, no images of
saints or Mary or the Apostles etc, for one thing no one knows what
they really looked like, and the images you have could be evil people
or who knows who was used to copy to make such images. The bible show
and the scriptures are locked in on the bible which the Catholic do
not follow or want to read. Check the out. Lev 26:1
26
'You shall not make idols for yourselves;
neither a carved image nor a sacred pillar shall you rear up for
yourselves;
nor shall you set up an engraved stone in your land, to bow down to
it;
for I am the Lord your God. NKJV
Even you Pope bow' down to engraved images made of stone, and wood
etc.
2 Chron 24:18-19
18 Therefore they left the house of the Lord God of their fathers, and
served wooden images and idols; and wrath came upon Judah and
Jerusalem because of their trespass. 19 Yet He sent prophets to them,
to bring them back to the Lord; and they testified against them, but
they would not listen.
NKJV
RWKnapp
> >> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? It was not hell, for
> >> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
> >> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
> >> man to know.
> >> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
> >> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
> >The Catholic church uses the term purgatory, the story of laz was in
> >Paradise before the resurrection, as Hell was also in that one place
> >understood as the place of the dead and they could see each other.
>
> Purgatory = supposed place of purging. The new Christians had to be made to understand.
Why there is no such place to start with and not a word of it is from
the Bible so the Christian need to understand it is only a make
believed place, made by some Pope to get more money out of the
people. Ever hear of a MASS that does not take money in for praying
for the souls that missed Heaven and really went to hell, so they now
can get a pass to bypass the bible and get to heaven some other way.
Not going to happen.
Matt 22:11-14
11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there
who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 So he said to him, 'Friend,
how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was
speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and
foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
NKJV
>
> >The gulf was wide and so one could not pass from one to the other, no
> >limbo no second chance to get to heaven.
>
> Limbo is another issue to purgatory. And it's all very simple. Live in the
> spirit of Christ and the door is open. Play God and you'll find A&E as next
> door neighbors.
Yes the Catholic church has many false doctrines such as this one on
Limbo. You really make no sense at all. It means this: "(theology) in
Roman Catholicism, the place of unbaptized but innocent or righteous
souls (such as infants and virtuous individuals)"
All man made doctrines never appoved by God. Justification and glory
1. The glory which disembodied spirits are enjoying now. The moment
that the soul leaves the body, the justified soul is in glory.
Romanism holds that some of the best saints go to heaven when they
die; but that the great mass of inferior saints must undergo
purgation. But the dying thief was no eminent saint. The only good
deed that we ever read of his doing was when he claimed Christ as
Lord, and rebuked his fellow-thief for slandering the Saviour. Yet,
hear the words, "To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise." Nor is
this the only instance. We find, when Lazarus died, that he was
carried by angels into Abraham's bosom. Stephen expected the Lord
Jesus to receive his spirit, and the apostle Paul was in a strait
betwixt two, being willing "to depart and to be with Christ." In Eph
3:15, the apostle mentions the whole family as being in heaven and
earth, but he speaks of none of the Lord's people being in limbo .
Those whom we are bidden to follow, in Heb 6:12, are now inheriting
the promises. Let the voice of God decide the case for ever (Rev
14:13). The glory of paradise was that God walked there in the cool of
the evening with His creatures; and the glory of heaven is, that "they
need no candle, neither light of the sun, for the Lord God giveth them
light," and the days of their mourning shall be ended.
(from The Biblical Illustrator Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006 Ages
Software, Inc. and Biblesoft, Inc.)
LIMBO
Limbo. In Roman Catholic theology, the region or state proximate to
heaven (limbo is from the Latin word for "edge" or "border") in which
reside departed souls who do not enjoy the beatific vision but do not
suffer any other privation. Two kinds of limbo are distinguished: the
limbus patrum, or limbo of the Old Testament believers, and the limbus
infantium, the limbo of unbaptized infants. The origin of the idea can
be traced with confidence only as far back as the high Middle Ages:
the word is not used either by Scripture or the church fathers. Some
theologians have seen the Old Testament believers as entering heaven
with Christ (as in 1 Peter 4:6). As for the latter group, Augustine
believed that the souls of unbaptized infants went to hell, thereby
implicitly denying the idea of limbo. Most theologians of the high
Middle Ages (notably Thomas Aquinas), on the other hand, defended the
view which came to predominate, that these souls went to an
intermediate state in which they were deprived of supernatural
blessing (since baptism was understood to be essential to full
salvation) but enjoyed full natural happiness. Only one official Roman
Catholic document speaks of limbo, the bull of Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei
(1794), and even this leaves open the question of limbo's very
existence. Since 1900, some theologians have suggested that God's
universal salvific will extend to these souls and have therefore
denied the existence of limbo altogether.
J. G. Stackhouse
(from Dictionary of Christianity in America, edited by Daniel G. Reid,
Robert D. Linder, Bruce L. Shelley and Harry S. Stout. © 1990 by
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA; published by InterVarsity
Press. All rights reserved.)
You going to do as you did before make believe you never read this as
this may prove your faith has been wrong all this time?
duke
>> >The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
>> >in Scripture.
>> Don't be so stupid. �The Catholic Church is not only the Church that Christ
>> founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church �that most fully follows
>> scripture and locked in on the bible.
>Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
>from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact. Ask any Greek
>Orthodox priest and he will let you know real quick.
Ask the Roman Catholic Church today, including reading Church history for 2000
years, and you will find out your error - real quick.
Christ gave his Church on earth the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
Thats 100% scriptural. The Church was called to be one church = universal =
katholocis in Greek = (c)atholic = (C)atholic Church = Western Catholic Church
(Rome) & Eastern Catholic Church (Constantinople) = Roman Catholic Church when
the EOC (Eastern) Church left the group.
The day before the schism, the Papacy was universal in Jesus's Church for the
last 1054 years. The day after the schism, the Papacy only existed in the
Western Church.
We can discuss EOC changes in the Eucharist in the next post.
>The Church which
>today is Universal but the Roman by its name is only a church from
>Rome.
See above.
>So don't you be so stupid, then I gave you what the Holy Bible
>said, and you cut it out to make your false teachings fool the
>readers.
Fool the readers? Why would they have to be more fooled than you? Don't you
give them credit for comprehension?
Your problem is that you read the bible as the end all (other than
scripturally). It's not a complete history book, but it is historical. It's
not a math book, but they do count.
> Then most followers belong to the protestant and Orthodox
>church that is as large in number as the billion catholic churches
>worldwide, that means only 50 percent of the followers of the Holy
>Bible are not Roman Catholics.
But most are closely Catholic. The EOC is, and the Anglicans are very close.
I would look forward to your explanation of why protest_ants reject the Church
characteristics given directly by Jesus in the gospels - the Holy Mass, 7
sacraments, and the Papacy.
> What other falsehoods do you believe?
>For one thing the true Church would never have image in their church
>which without them the Catholic Church would be nothing, no images of
>saints or Mary or the Apostles etc, for one thing no one knows what
>they really looked like, and the images you have could be evil people
>or who knows who was used to copy to make such images.
What difference does it make if the images in the church are exact physical
replications? Jesus was a baby and a man, and Mary was a woman. What are you
afraid of?
> The bible show
>and the scriptures are locked in on the bible which the Catholic do
>not follow or want to read.
What do you mean we do not follow? For your information, the RCC is lock step
in line with scripture, we read it every day at Mass, and many now read it at
home. Virtually every word repeated at Mass is found in the bible.
We Catholics follow scripture; you protest_ants just read it.
>Check the out. Lev 26:1
>26
>'You shall not make idols for yourselves;
1. Levi is for Jews.
2. No image of God or Jesus existed at that time.
3. The Jews tried a golden calf and look what it got them.
4. We don't worship the images.
>neither a carved image nor a sacred pillar shall you rear up for
>yourselves;
>nor shall you set up an engraved stone in your land, to bow down to
>it;
>for I am the Lord your God. NKJV
>Even you Pope bow' down to engraved images made of stone, and wood
>etc.
No, no he doesn't. He's not bowing to the statue or praying to it, any more
than you would be doing if you "talked" to a photo of a loved one, or at a grave
site.
>2 Chron 24:18-19
>18 Therefore they left the house of the Lord God of their fathers, and
>served wooden images and idols; and wrath came upon Judah and
>Jerusalem because of their trespass. 19 Yet He sent prophets to them,
>to bring them back to the Lord; and they testified against them, but
>they would not listen.
>NKJV
Yep, they **served** wooden images. We don't.
Patrick
Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact.
PB - OK, show me now....
Give me a reference....
-----------
The bible show
and the scriptures are locked in on the bible which the Catholic do
not follow or want to read. Check the out. Lev 26:1
26
'You shall not make idols for yourselves;
neither a carved image nor a sacred pillar shall you rear up for
yourselves;
nor shall you set up an engraved stone in your land, to bow down to
it;
for I am the Lord your God. NKJV
PRB -- Catholics don't bow down to "images " or "idols."
-------------------
Even you Pope bow' down to engraved images made of stone, and wood
etc.
PRB - <Yawn> same song, different day....
Catholics worship statues!" People still make this ridiculous claim. Because
Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are
violating God's commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to
them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4-5); "Alas, this people have sinned a great
sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold" (Ex. 32:31).
It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are
committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of
Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the
Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.
Anti-Catholic writer Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, makes
the blanket statement, "God has forbidden the use of images in worship"
(281). Yet if people were to "search the scriptures" (cf. John 5:39), they
would find the opposite is true. God forbade the worship of statues, but he
did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded
their use in religious contexts!
God Said To Make Them
People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where
the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make
two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work
shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on
the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat
shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out
their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their
faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim
be" (Ex. 25:18-20).
David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold,
and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that
spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this
he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all
the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18-19). David's plan
for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of
the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
Similarly Ezekiel 41:17-18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized
temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in
the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."
The Religious Uses of Images
During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus,
God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole;
and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a
bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would
look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8-9).
One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which
shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious
decorations.
Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the
person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one's mother by
looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints
by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching
tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction
of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible
pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues
to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have
three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these "graven"
images, they would be practicing the "idolatry" of which they accuse
Catholics. But there's no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids
the worship of images as gods, but he doesn't ban the making of images. If
he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar
things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God
does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.
It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes
angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a
snake-god (whom they named "Nehushtan"), the righteous king Hezekiah had it
destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4).
What About Bowing?
Sometimes anti-Catholics cite Deuteronomy 5:9, where God said concerning
idols, "You shall not bow down to them." Since many Catholics sometimes bow
or kneel in front of statues of Jesus and the saints, anti-Catholics confuse
the legitimate veneration of a sacred image with the sin of idolatry.
Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is
worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent
of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king
without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel
in front of a statue while praying isn't worshipping the statue or even
praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his
hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp
Patrick
Good Golly.
Are you the same Ray Knapp who was the BIG missionary in
the Philippines and was sent home? Are you the dishwasher at
Burger King who took a bath in the dishwater?
I kicked your ass several years ago. Do you need another lesson
in humility? Where are you now? Texas? California? Are you
still picking fruit? Are you still all so proud about yer kids?
duke
>On Dec 27, 5:44�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:51:06 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>> >> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? It was not hell, for
>> >> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
>> >> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
>> >> man to know.
>> >> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
>> >> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>> >The Catholic church uses the term purgatory, the story of laz was in
>> >Paradise before the resurrection, as Hell was also in that one place
>> >understood as the place of the dead and they could see each other.
>> Purgatory = supposed place of purging. �The new Christians had to be made to understand.
>Why there is no such place to start with and not a word of it is from
>the Bible so the Christian need to understand it is only a make
>believed place
"Who" said there was no such place to start with? It's scriptural as no man is
pure enough to stand before God without attaining a degree of purification. Heb
12:14.
> Ever hear of a MASS that does not take money in for praying
>for the souls that missed Heaven and really went to hell
As a Roman Catholic attending daily Mass, I never hear of such a thing. No
wonder you're a protest_er, you're totally ignorant of the RCC..
>, so they now
>can get a pass to bypass the bible and get to heaven some other way.
>Not going to happen.
>Matt 22:11-14
Clearly not those things that feed your wild imagination.
>11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there
>who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 So he said to him, 'Friend,
>how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was
>speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and
>foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be
>weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
>14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
>NKJV
Yep, God calls all men, but few are without sin to the point that they can go to
purgatory.
>> >The gulf was wide and so one could not pass from one to the other, no
>> >limbo no second chance to get to heaven.
>> Limbo is another issue to purgatory. �And it's all very simple. �Live in the
>> spirit of Christ and the door is open. �Play God and you'll find A&E as next
>> door neighbors.
>Yes the Catholic church has many false doctrines such as this one on
>Limbo.
How do you know how God handles the infants and youth that die without the
benefit of Baptism. I await you silly answer here.
> You really make no sense at all. It means this: "(theology) in
>Roman Catholicism, the place of unbaptized but innocent or righteous
>souls (such as infants and virtuous individuals)"
It means this: Christians..........
>All man made doctrines never appoved by God. Justification and glory
How would you know. You ignore all the teachings of Christ.
>1. The glory which disembodied spirits are enjoying now. The moment
>that the soul leaves the body, the justified soul is in glory.
>Romanism holds that some of the best saints go to heaven when they
>die; but that the great mass of inferior saints must undergo
>purgation.
It's scriptural.
> But the dying thief was no eminent saint. The only good
>deed that we ever read of his doing was when he claimed Christ as
>Lord, and rebuked his fellow-thief for slandering the Saviour. Yet,
>hear the words, "To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise."
Those very words are what got him there, but "to day" does not mean in the next
24 hours.
You're trying to play silly games with the afterlife.
>LIMBO
>Limbo. In Roman Catholic theology, the region or state proximate to
>heaven (limbo is from the Latin word for "edge" or "border") in which
>reside departed souls who do not enjoy the beatific vision but do not
>suffer any other privation. Two kinds of limbo are distinguished: the
>limbus patrum, or limbo of the Old Testament believers, and the limbus
>infantium, the limbo of unbaptized infants.
And what is your problem with trying to satiate the immature mind of man.
> The origin of the idea can
>be traced with confidence only as far back as the high Middle Ages:
>the word is not used either by Scripture or the church fathers.
The things that Jesus said that are not recorded far outnumber the ones that
are. John 21:25.
>You going to do as you did before make believe you never read this as
>this may prove your faith has been wrong all this time?
Not a chance of that as you can't defend the opposite.
>> > �After the resurrection we
>> >see taking the keys of Hell and the grave and now it is in Heaven one
>> >dies they are judged to hell or heaven.
>> Wrong. �The Mortal sinner go directly at death.
>> >Luke 16:22-31
>> >22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to
>> >Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. �23 And being
>> >in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off,
>> >and Lazarus in his bosom.
>> There you go, the begger lived is the spirit and the rich man didn't.
GREAT no response.
>> >The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
>> >in Scripture.
>> Don't be so stupid. �The Catholic Church is not only the Church that Christ
>> founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church �that most fully follows
>> scripture and locked in on the bible.
Another absolutely beautiful no response.
duke
wrote:
I'm starting over on this response. The reason is that **we're** trying to
quantify events after death, which is wishful thinking. We don't know, and we
can't impact in what it means.
First, I gather you investigated becoming a Catholic (RCIA class). Did you
become Catholic? {ps - I see at the end that you are/were Catholic}.
Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
etc.
>> >> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them?
>> >Not sure what you mean. THE resurrection is yet to come. The righteous
>> >dead in spirit were in abraham's bosom.
>> I disagree. THE resurrection was 2000 years ago when the righteous that died
>> were raised to new life.
>Guess I'll let paul speak to that claim then:
Ok, let's see it.
>16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more
>ungodliness.
>17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and
>Philetus;
>18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is
>past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
Yep, 2 Thess. They were packing up the stores & goodies thinking the Day of the
Lord had already passed. However, the resurrection of the Lord had already
taken place.
> That means heaven.
>> Matthew 27:51-52 (New International Version)
>> 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
>> The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of
>> many holy people who had died were raised to life.
>As you are an educated catholic, I assume you know that while the bible
>does not say what became of these saints, the gospel of nicodemus says
>they returned to their graves 3 days later, and I suspect that most
>catholic scholars would take that view.
Nico saying 3 days may be THE error that kept it out of the gospels.
And the bible does say they were raised to **LIFE**. If they were raised
pre-glorified Jesus, say from a lowly spot to a purgatory, it's still proper to
say they were raised to life.
>But even if you don't, I don't see how you can say THIS was the
>resurrection given the fact that folks have died and been awaiting
>resurrection for 2000 years since, and certainly paul's words to the
>thessalonians are speaking of a future event
Yes, the Day of the Lord.
>> >If you mean 'raised' in the sense of taking them to heaven after the
>> >crucifixion, they were in sheol, where all souls were, with those in
>> >covenant with God in a good part of it, and the unrighteous in a bad
>> >part of it.
>> I disagree.
>> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
>> The Latin infernus (inferum, inferi), the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew sheol
>> correspond to the word hell.
>But HELL isn't the place of eternal perdition. That's the lake of fire
>spoken of in revelation. The hades/sheol spoken of is the abode of the
>dead before the judgment. I know we commonly use it as an
>all-encompassing word for eternal perdition, but technically it's the
>place one would go to BEFORE judgment.
Forget hades/sheol/lake of fire/high land/low land. There's only two places -
the saved with God or the damned with satan. Those who die separated from God
(in mortal sin) go directly to hell. Those who die completely in Christ go
directly to God. Those others that are all of us must be purified first to
stand before God.
It is not for man to know if "directly to hell" is instantaneous or a billion
man years. The same is true of standing face to face with God. It is not for
man to know the time frame for the dead in Christ who rose when Christ died is a
quick or long trip or a round about trip when they were raised to life.
>So the rich man is in "hell", yes, but he still has the lake of fire
>awaiting him, which is much worse.
Three places - heaven, hell, purification. Those dying in mortal sin never make
it to purification. Mat 12:32.
>> >Peter alludes to it:
>> >18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
>> >that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but
>> >quickened by the Spirit:
>> >19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
>> > Called hades/sheol
>> >20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God
>> >waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few,
>> >that is, eight souls were saved by water.
>>
>> >And paul as well:
>>
>> >8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity
>> >captive, and gave gifts unto men.
>> >9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first
>> >into the lower parts of the earth?
>>
>> Yep, Jesus collected the souls of the just in God and raised them to life. Now,
>> even if that means purgatory, which is the stopover for the saved, they have
>> been raised to life.
>Are you saying that pope john paul (or any righteous departed catholic)
>has a resurrected physical body at this time?
Absolutely yes, subject to the state of his soul being pure. And not just
Catholics but all people of all faiths and non-faiths everywhere. Those are the
canonized saints.
BTW, I consider the idea of all humankind having to rise at one time to be a
silly idea. When our souls in purgatory give up the love of sin, God will take
us.
>I'm not understanding your exact doctrine on this
Heaven or hell or purging on the way to heaven.
>> >> It was not hell, for
>> >> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
>> >> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
>> >> man to know.
>>
>> >We can make a reasonable surmise. What we can reasonable infer was that
>> >it was a holding tank of some sort
>> Do you not believe that we are now in the kingdom of God, having been buried
>> with Christ to sin in baptism as the 2nd coming of Christ occurred 2000 years
>> ago?
>No, I'm a futurist, so i believe that we are in 'the age of the church'
>for lack of a better term off the top of my head, and that the fulness
>of the messianic age will come as follows
So, when Jesus was glorified upon his death on the cross and his subsequent
return 3 days later, you don't believe that the kingdom of God is upon us?
Luke 17:21 (New International Version)
21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of
God is within you."
We now live under the new covenant of love of God, written on our hearts and not
by the sacrifice of bulls..
>luke 21
>24And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away
>captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the
>Gentiles, _____until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.____
>(Hasn't happened yet; we're still in the times of the gentiles)
And Jesus has been glorified.
>25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the
>stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea
>and the waves roaring;
>26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those
>things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be
>shaken.
>27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power
>and great glory.
>28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift
>up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
>THEN the messianic age starts, in my view
You can see V25 occurring daily around the world.
>> >> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
>> >> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>> >Purgatory is a problematic doctrine. For one, it comes out of judaism,
>> >and is not expressly taught in the Bible at all.
>> Sure it is, in 2Mac12:40 as well as the purification of the souls according to:
>There is a bit of a problem there. It doen't really mention purgatory,
>and the prayers for the dead were made for idolatrous jews who (being
>idolotrous) died in mortal sin, for which purgatory can't save you.
Yet he prayed that his soldiers that died would be released from their sins.
Just the belief that there was still hope and their sins be blotted out.
>You also have a situation where Jesus hadn't atoned for mankind yet, so
>purgatory would do them no good because they could not leave it for
>heaven since Jesus hadn't come yet.
No purgatory mentioned. Just the concept that there was hope for the dead thru
prayer. The purifying became evident with the develop of the new covenant.
>So I acknowledge this passage reflects an accurate record of the
>practice and belief of the jews that prayers and alms on behalf of the
>dead could help atone for their sins (which many jews still believe
>today), but those teachings are problematic, and to extrapolate
>purgatory from them is a also bit problematical.
The first acknowledgement of the concept of prayer for the dead.
>I think a much stronger argument could be made from heb 12:23, which is
>very close--and virtually a proof text--for the basic doctrine of a
>soul's purification after death. But then when weighed against the rest
>of the NT, the way the RCC actually defines that process doesn't seem to
>meld well.
Like I said, heaven and hell and purification before heaven.
>> Purgatory:
>> Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
>> Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
>> Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
>> Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
>> 1Cor 3:13
>> 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.
>> It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's
>> work.
>>
>> Now here's the kicker.
>>
>> Matthew 12
>> 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone
>> who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or
>> in the age to come.
>>
>> What age to come? "Speaking against the Son of Man" forgiven in the age to come
>> and "nothing unclean will enter heaven" are contradictory terms in scripture if
>> there is nothing in between; ie, a state of purging of the sin nature.
>That is certainly one way to look at it. But another would be to look at
>the context of what is actually going on in the passage.
What's going on in the passage is clear. Venial sins are forgivable in the
"next life", mortal sin is not. What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? It
is dying playing God, telling God no, telling God we are his equal, that we can
decide right v wrong as well as he can.
>So you can make the argument the RCC way, but as is so often the case
>with purgatory arguments, it does not seem to be that strong, nor does
>it exclude other arguments
Heaven, hell, and purification.
>> Note:
>>
>> Speaking against the Son of Man (man) can be forgiven in the next age. Anyone
>> who speaks against the Holy Spirit (God) will not be forgiven in the next age.
>>
>> Now Rev 21:27 says: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�". That means there is
>> an age to come that is short of heaven because sins can be forgiven there
>> whereas no sin enters heaven.
>
>ok
>> >Some NT inferences are
>> >made that the process exists, and some of those inferences may have some
>> >merit, but the way the RCC defines it does not seem to hold up to
>> >scripture.
>>
>> >Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all
>> >be changed,
>> >__In a moment__, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the
>> >trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we
>> >shall be changed.
>> >No room for purgatory there.
>> I gave you more verses.
Being raised incorruptible does not necessarily mean one step - one to
purification and one to incorruptible..
>> Scripture does not say that one must know of and accept the gospel to be
>> accepted by God.
>Paul indicates it very clearly in romans 10, and this is where the RCC
>totally blows it with their doctrine that it's possible for someone who
>never hears the gospel to somehow cooperate well enough with the grace
>God gives him that he can die in a state of salvation:
Why would God restrict his love for his newborn creation that dies unbaptized?
He is unable to sin. But he still possesses the stain of original sin.
>8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in
>thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
>9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
>believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
>shalt be saved.
Definitely the case for the grown man.
And he also says that our new marching orders are that we love one another as he
loves us.
>10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
>mouth confession is made unto salvation.
>11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
>ashamed.
>12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the
>same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Yes, of course, and why send the infants to burn in hell because they died sans
baptism?
>13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Definitely the case for the grown man.
>See? The pagan MUST have a missionary explain the gospel to him so he
>can accept it and have salvation. He CAN'T have enough grace to
>cooperate with that somehow he dies in a state of grace for a Lord he
>has never heard of and called on. The RCC says he can, but the bible
>teaches something else
No, the bible doesn't. I often enjoy pointing out how many sin-filled
Christians will gnash their teeth in unbelief when they go to hell while
non-Christians who live in the spirit of Christ go to heaven.
>By the way, the catholic church I grew up in the 50-60s taught everyone
>but catholics were certainly going to hell.Period. At least, the
>catholic churches i knew did.
I suggest that word is (c)atholic and not (C)atholic.
Florence B. Nitengail
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:kqoej5p07t1b82u74...@4ax.com...
>
> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the
> case of
> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
There's no purgatory in the bible. There may be in some kind of limbo but
purgatory is the invention of the RCC. But then doesn't the bible say the
dead know nothing in Ec? If they know nothing until resurrected, then there
is nothing.......... until resurrected.
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:kqoej5p07t1b82u74...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the
>> case of
>> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>
>There's no purgatory in the bible. There may be in some kind of limbo but
>purgatory is the invention of the RCC.
Purgatory is scriptural; limbo is not.
There's only 3 places for the soul - heaven, hell, and purification before
heaven.
>But then doesn't the bible say the dead know nothing in Ec? If they know nothing until resurrected, then there
>is nothing.......... until resurrected.
Until resurrected when?
vince garcia
>
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:16:36 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'm starting over on this response. The reason is that **we're** trying to
> quantify events after death, which is wishful thinking. We don't know, and we
> can't impact in what it means.
>
> First, I gather you investigated becoming a Catholic (RCIA class). Did you
> become Catholic? {ps - I see at the end that you are/were Catholic}.
I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
Today i am an evangelical with good memories of the catholic church,
though I reject its claim of infallibility, and teach against some of
its bad doctrines.
>
> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
> etc.
Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
>
> >> >> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them?
> >> >Not sure what you mean. THE resurrection is yet to come. The righteous
> >> >dead in spirit were in abraham's bosom.
>
> >> I disagree. THE resurrection was 2000 years ago when the righteous that died
> >> were raised to new life.
> >Guess I'll let paul speak to that claim then:
>
> Ok, let's see it.
>
> >16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more
> >ungodliness.
> >17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and
> >Philetus;
> >18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is
> >past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
>
> Yep, 2 Thess. They were packing up the stores & goodies thinking the Day of the
> Lord had already passed. However, the resurrection of the Lord had already
> taken place.
I honestly don't know how you're getting that. that's not a view taught
by the RCC that I've ever heard. Can you give me a reference?
>
> > That means heaven.
> >> Matthew 27:51-52 (New International Version)
> >> 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
> >> The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of
> >> many holy people who had died were raised to life.
>
> >As you are an educated catholic, I assume you know that while the bible
> >does not say what became of these saints, the gospel of nicodemus says
> >they returned to their graves 3 days later, and I suspect that most
> >catholic scholars would take that view.
>
> Nico saying 3 days may be THE error that kept it out of the gospels.
>
> And the bible does say they were raised to **LIFE**. If they were raised
> pre-glorified Jesus, say from a lowly spot to a purgatory, it's still proper to
> say they were raised to life.
Yes. but we don't know what happened next, which amazes me that matthew
does not say
>
> >But even if you don't, I don't see how you can say THIS was the
> >resurrection given the fact that folks have died and been awaiting
> >resurrection for 2000 years since, and certainly paul's words to the
> >thessalonians are speaking of a future event
>
> Yes, the Day of the Lord.
>
> >> >If you mean 'raised' in the sense of taking them to heaven after the
> >> >crucifixion, they were in sheol, where all souls were, with those in
> >> >covenant with God in a good part of it, and the unrighteous in a bad
> >> >part of it.
>
> >> I disagree.
>
> >> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
> >> The Latin infernus (inferum, inferi), the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew sheol
> >> correspond to the word hell.
>
> >But HELL isn't the place of eternal perdition. That's the lake of fire
> >spoken of in revelation. The hades/sheol spoken of is the abode of the
> >dead before the judgment. I know we commonly use it as an
> >all-encompassing word for eternal perdition, but technically it's the
> >place one would go to BEFORE judgment.
>
> Forget hades/sheol/lake of fire/high land/low land. There's only two places -
> the saved with God or the damned with satan. Those who die separated from God
> (in mortal sin) go directly to hell.
But not the lake of fire, which gets filled at the last judgment
Those who die completely in Christ go
> directly to God. Those others that are all of us must be purified first to
> stand before God.
And that there is an arguable issue. Perhps. Perhps not. The bible does
not explicitly say that, but one might infer that and argue the case.
What we CAN seem to say with reasonable certainty is that the RCC view
of purgatory does not hold up to scripture, in that it is a prolonged
process that can take centuries, with prayers and alms for the dead all
that time helping those there get out. The Bible really does not affirm
those ideas
>
> It is not for man to know if "directly to hell" is instantaneous or a billion
> man years. The same is true of standing face to face with God. It is not for
> man to know the time frame for the dead in Christ who rose when Christ died is a
> quick or long trip or a round about trip when they were raised to life.
>
> >So the rich man is in "hell", yes, but he still has the lake of fire
> >awaiting him, which is much worse.
>
> Three places - heaven, hell, purification. Those dying in mortal sin never make
> it to purification. Mat 12:32.
Apparently they can: 2 macc 12(?), where the guys being prayed for are
idolators, which is mortal sin
So either someone in the mortal sin of idolatry CAN go to purgatory, or
that passage is not a good proof text to use since it refutes catholic
teaching on the subject
>
> >> >Peter alludes to it:
>
> >> >18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
> >> >that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but
> >> >quickened by the Spirit:
> >> >19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
> >> > Called hades/sheol
>
> >> >20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God
> >> >waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few,
> >> >that is, eight souls were saved by water.
> >>
> >> >And paul as well:
> >>
> >> >8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity
> >> >captive, and gave gifts unto men.
> >> >9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first
> >> >into the lower parts of the earth?
> >>
> >> Yep, Jesus collected the souls of the just in God and raised them to life. Now,
> >> even if that means purgatory, which is the stopover for the saved, they have
> >> been raised to life.
>
> >Are you saying that pope john paul (or any righteous departed catholic)
> >has a resurrected physical body at this time?
>
> Absolutely yes, subject to the state of his soul being pure. And not just
> Catholics but all people of all faiths and non-faiths everywhere. Those are the
> canonized saints.
Is this a catholic teaching?? Can you give me a source for it?
>
> BTW, I consider the idea of all humankind having to rise at one time to be a
> silly idea. When our souls in purgatory give up the love of sin, God will take
> us.
>
> >I'm not understanding your exact doctrine on this
>
> Heaven or hell or purging on the way to heaven.
>
> >> >> It was not hell, for
> >> >> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
> >> >> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
> >> >> man to know.
> >>
> >> >We can make a reasonable surmise. What we can reasonable infer was that
> >> >it was a holding tank of some sort
>
> >> Do you not believe that we are now in the kingdom of God, having been buried
> >> with Christ to sin in baptism as the 2nd coming of Christ occurred 2000 years
> >> ago?
>
> >No, I'm a futurist, so i believe that we are in 'the age of the church'
> >for lack of a better term off the top of my head, and that the fulness
> >of the messianic age will come as follows
>
> So, when Jesus was glorified upon his death on the cross and his subsequent
> return 3 days later, you don't believe that the kingdom of God is upon us?
Nope:
Luke 11
11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because
he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of
God should immediately appear.
12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to
receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and
said unto them, Occupy till I come.
Heb 2 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in
that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put
under him. ___But now we see not yet all things put under him.___
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the
suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace
of God should taste death for every man.
The kingdom of God in its fullness is yet to come.
>
> Luke 17:21 (New International Version)
> 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of
> God is within you."
>
> We now live under the new covenant of love of God, written on our hearts and not
> by the sacrifice of bulls..
Yeah. That's the NEW COVENANT, not the miessianic kingdom
Uh. no--it is attributing the power of God to satan. Even the didache
takes a similar view, saying judging a propghet of God is the
unforgivable sin, and the didache is right from the time the apostles
were still living
>
> >So you can make the argument the RCC way, but as is so often the case
> >with purgatory arguments, it does not seem to be that strong, nor does
> >it exclude other arguments
>
> Heaven, hell, and purification.
"purification" might indeed be argued. PURGATORY (as defined) is the
problem
Different issue. I'm talking about adults. Paul clearly indicates they
must hear/receive Christ to be saved, the RCC says they don't have to,
but can cooperate with the inner grace of God and die in a state of
grace.
FOOEY, as my jewish friend rob would say
>
> >8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in
> >thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
> >9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
> >believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
> >shalt be saved.
>
> Definitely the case for the grown man.
>
> And he also says that our new marching orders are that we love one another as he
> loves us.
>
> >10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
> >mouth confession is made unto salvation.
> >11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
> >ashamed.
> >12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the
> >same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
>
> Yes, of course, and why send the infants to burn in hell because they died sans
> baptism?
>
Based on deut 1:39, i would say they go to heaven. But that is
speculation. Another possibility is that in the milennium they will be
raised to life and be returned to earth to live out the lives they did
not have a chance to live. No scripture for that; it's only my
speculation
> >13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
>
> Definitely the case for the grown man.
>
> >See? The pagan MUST have a missionary explain the gospel to him so he
> >can accept it and have salvation. He CAN'T have enough grace to
> >cooperate with that somehow he dies in a state of grace for a Lord he
> >has never heard of and called on. The RCC says he can, but the bible
> >teaches something else
>
> No, the bible doesn't. I often enjoy pointing out how many sin-filled
> Christians will gnash their teeth in unbelief when they go to hell while
> non-Christians who live in the spirit of Christ go to heaven.
impossible. period. NO non-christian is going to heaven. Period. End of
story. Not one jew. Not one moslem. Not one atheist. Not one hindu. No
one nothing. ONLY Christians in covenant with God thru faith in Christ
will be there.
See the parable in matt 22 about the wedding garment handed out at the
gate (Christ), where a guy who did not come thru that gate and get the
garment was thrown out even though he was invited in with the rest!
>
> >By the way, the catholic church I grew up in the 50-60s taught everyone
> >but catholics were certainly going to hell.Period. At least, the
> >catholic churches i knew did.
>
> I suggest that word is (c)atholic and not (C)atholic.
huh?? You mean you're not a ROMAN catholic? You're some sort of
orthodox?
Florence B. Nitengail
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:28:43 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:kqoej5p07t1b82u74...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the
>>> case of
>>> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>>
>>There's no purgatory in the bible. There may be in some kind of limbo but
>>purgatory is the invention of the RCC.
>
> Purgatory is scriptural; limbo is not.
There is no purgatory in the Bible. This is a construct of the RCC
>
> There's only 3 places for the soul - heaven, hell, and purification before
> heaven.
Another RCC construct.
>
>>But then doesn't the bible say the dead know nothing in Ec? If they know
>>nothing until resurrected, then there
>>is nothing.......... until resurrected.
>
> Until resurrected when?
When the ressurrection occurs. Read your bible.
Patrick
>> Purgatory is scriptural; limbo is not.
>
> There is no purgatory in the Bible. This is a construct of the RCC
The word Purgatory isn't in the Bible.
The word isn't in the Bible but the inference to this place, Purgatory, is.
Let's look at some scripture to support the Catholic position.
In Matthew's Gospel (Matthew 12:32) we read that the sin of "Blaspheming the
Holy Spirit" is a sin which won't be forgiven in this world or the next.
Matthew 12:32
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven
him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven
him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
This passage implies that there are some sins which are forgiven in the next
world.
In Matt 5:26 Jesus talks about a place from which you wouldn't be released
until you paid everything you owe.
Matthew 5:26
Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou
hast paid the uttermost farthing.
Jesus, talking about the unforgiving debtor, said he would be tortured until
his debt was paid. Jesus then said the Father would do the same to us.
Matthew 18:34-35
And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should
pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also
unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their
trespasses.
Where is this place we will be in until we have paid our last farthing? A
place we must stay until our debt is completely paid. We know it can't be
hell because no matter how much we pay there is no escape or pardon. It
can't be heaven because Scripture tells us nothing defiled can enter heaven.
Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that
defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they
which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
Something we all should be aware of is that Scripture says we defile
ourselves with "idle words." Now don't confuse an idle word with a useless
word. The biblical definition of an idle word is a malicious assertion or
calumny. I thought I should mention this because at times many of us sow our
words in the fields of gossip and calumny. And we all know what it says in
Galatians 6:7. You don't? Then look it up.
Matthew 12:36-37
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall
give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be
justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Place yourself in the following scenarios. You are a Christian according to
any Church's standards. You are walking the Christian walk daily but in a
moment of weakness you make a malicious statement against someone. You want
to repent and plan to do so at your evening devotions but before you can ask
God's forgiveness you are killed in a car accident. Would true justice
require an eternity in hell?
An opportunity arises to help someone. To do a good work. Perhaps give to a
charity, perhaps change a flat tire for some old lady. You get the idea. The
epistle of James says neglecting these good works would be a sin for the
Christian.
James 4:17
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is
sin.
For a sin of omission are people doomed to spend eternity in hell? The
examples given are sins committed by people who were Christians in every
sense of the word. These people are probably guilty of only venial sins. All
their lives they had tried to live for God. Don't the Scriptures teach that
such people reap eternal life.
Galatians 6:7-8
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall
he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap
corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life
everlasting. (Yep, you are absolutely correct. This is the passage I told
you to look up. Pretty sneaky, huh?)
Would the all just God determine that these people spend eternity in hell?
This seems like a mockery of justice. The kind of justice dispensed by
courts on earth. But even with the corrupt courts we have, would a person
with a parking ticket and a murderer both be sentenced to death? Of course
not! Then how can we accuse the Omnipotent, All Just God of dispensing such
justice?
Job 8:3-4
Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert justice?
Catholics believe sins are classified into two categories. The first
category is called mortal sin. Mortal comes from the word mortis in Latin
which means death. It is so called because Catholics believe if you die
without having repented of mortal sin you will go to hell, the second death.
The second category of sin is referred to as venial sin. Venial comes from
the Latin word venialis which means pardonable. The Scripture below supports
this position that there are varying degrees of sin and the quotes from the
Early Church Fathers at the end of this section show that this is what the
early Church taught and believed.
1 John 5:16-17
If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask,
and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin
unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is
sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
Paul speaks about a place where a person's works are burned as by fire yet
the person himself is saved. Many Doctors of the Church have used the quote
of Paul in Corinthians in their writings and consider it a direct reference
to Purgatory.
Corinthians 3:15
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself
shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Many private revelations to saints have shown Purgatory to be a place where
sin is purged by fire. Even though Catholics are not required to accept or
believe private revelations a glance at the Old Testament shows that these
revelations may have a basis. We see Isaiah's sin purged by a live coal.
Isaiah 6:5-7
Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips,
and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have
seen the King, the LORD of hosts. Then flew one of the seraphims unto me,
having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off
the altar: And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy
lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.
Any more on purgatory in the Bible? Well, the second book of Machabees talks
about praying for the dead.
2 Machabees 12:46
it is a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from
their sins.
Hooray! Finally a Scripture that supports the Catholic position. Well that
depends. For my sister's interdenominational Bible group it won't matter
what Machabees says because they don't have that book in the protestant
versions of the Bible.
I hate to break the bad news but the Protestant Reformers rejected 2
Machabees and six other Old Testament books that were in the Septuagint
Version even though they were recognized by many early Church Fathers and
the Catholic Church. The same Church, in fact the only institution, that
determined which writings were to make up the Canon of the Bible. How people
can accept and profess that the Bible is the Word of God yet reject the
institution that determined which writings would constitute the Canon of the
Bible is beyond my comprehension.
Now our non-Catholic friends state they don't believe in Purgatory and
praying for the dead but at all the non-Catholic funerals I have attended
there was always prayer for the deceased. Why? It doesn't do any good, does
it? Or does it? Perhaps there is a truth hidden in our hearts by God that
surfaces at the time of the death of our loved ones that causes us to pray.
I mentioned earlier that my sister's friend scoffs at the idea of praying
for the dead but what if she is wrong. Hebrews 12:23, the King James
Version, seems to put the saints into two different groups "the General
Assembly and Church of the firstborn which are written in heaven"; then the
Scripture speaks of "the spirits of the just men made perfect."
Hebrews 12:22-23
But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the
heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general
assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to
God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Do certain questions come to mind? Why is a distinction made? Who are the
spirits made perfect? Where were they perfected? Perhaps a place called
Purgatory? If this place or state of purgation does exist who is praying for
your loved ones? A more personal question to ponder is who will pray for
you?
We are all called to perfection and holiness. Our mission on this earth is
to become as much like Jesus as we can. I don't know about you but at this
moment I fall far short of the mark. That's why we have Purgatory. It is
more like a place to clean up before seeing God. Oh, sure we will experience
pain for our sins to the point we will weep because we shall see how our
sins appear to God. But we have this to look forward to:
Revelation 21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no
more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more
pain: for the former things are passed away.
http://members.cox.net/sfobro/purga.html
Bob Young
On 12/28/09 9:44 PM, in article o5bhj51v8t8ktdbht...@4ax.com,
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:34:21 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
>
>>>> The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
>>>> in Scripture.
>
>>> Don't be so stupid. �The Catholic Church is not only the Church that Christ
>>> founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church �that most fully follows
>>> scripture and locked in on the bible.
>
>> Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
>> from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact. Ask any Greek
>> Orthodox priest and he will let you know real quick.
>
> Ask the Roman Catholic Church today, including reading Church history for 2000
> years, and you will find out your error - real quick.
>
> Christ gave his Church on earth the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
> Thats 100% scriptural.
Which means it is 100% firmly ensconced in the section marked . .
'Mythology and Fiction'
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:6gpjj5tj90k2g5bbt...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:28:43 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:kqoej5p07t1b82u74...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the
>>>> case of
>>>> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>>>
>>>There's no purgatory in the bible. There may be in some kind of limbo but
>>>purgatory is the invention of the RCC.
>>
>> Purgatory is scriptural; limbo is not.
>
>There is no purgatory in the Bible. This is a construct of the RCC
Like most things, the AD2009 word may not be there, but the actions clearly are.
>> There's only 3 places for the soul - heaven, hell, and purification before
>> heaven.
>Another RCC construct.
Another truth from God.
>>>But then doesn't the bible say the dead know nothing in Ec? If they know
>>>nothing until resurrected, then there
>>>is nothing.......... until resurrected.
>> Until resurrected when?
>When the ressurrection occurs. Read your bible.
It's already "happened" for untold millions. Try reading your bible.
duke
>
>
>
>On 12/28/09 9:44 PM, in article o5bhj51v8t8ktdbht...@4ax.com,
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:34:21 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
>>>>> in Scripture.
>>
>>>> Don't be so stupid. �The Catholic Church is not only the Church that Christ
>>>> founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church �that most fully follows
>>>> scripture and locked in on the bible.
>>
>>> Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
>>> from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact. Ask any Greek
>>> Orthodox priest and he will let you know real quick.
>>
>> Ask the Roman Catholic Church today, including reading Church history for 2000
>> years, and you will find out your error - real quick.
>> Christ gave his Church on earth the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
>> Thats 100% scriptural.
>Which means it is 100% firmly ensconced in the section marked . .
>'Mythology and Fiction'
Oh, well, that's your problem, not mine.
duke
wrote:
>duke wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:16:36 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm starting over on this response. The reason is that **we're** trying to
>> quantify events after death, which is wishful thinking. We don't know, and we
>> can't impact in what it means.
>>
>> First, I gather you investigated becoming a Catholic (RCIA class). Did you
>> become Catholic? {ps - I see at the end that you are/were Catholic}.
>I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
>Today i am an evangelical with good memories of the catholic church,
>though I reject its claim of infallibility, and teach against some of
>its bad doctrines.
What is a "spiritualist medium"?
Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
doctrine.
>> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
>> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
>> etc.
>Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
>there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. I am always amused at the way
some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
things.
>> >> >> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them?
>> >> >Not sure what you mean. THE resurrection is yet to come. The righteous
>> >> >dead in spirit were in abraham's bosom.
>> >> I disagree. THE resurrection was 2000 years ago when the righteous that died
>> >> were raised to new life.
>> >Guess I'll let paul speak to that claim then:
>>
>> Ok, let's see it.
>> >16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more
>> >ungodliness.
>> >17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and
>> >Philetus;
>> >18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is
>> >past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
>> Yep, 2 Thess. They were packing up the stores & goodies thinking the Day of the
>> Lord had already passed. However, the resurrection of the Lord had already
>> taken place.
>I honestly don't know how you're getting that. that's not a view taught
>by the RCC that I've ever heard. Can you give me a reference?
Which part? The prelude to 2Thes states this in my Catholic Study bible. The
reference is to the Day of the Lord. Jesus of course had already risen from
the dead, so I don't think you mean that.
>> > That means heaven.
>> >> Matthew 27:51-52 (New International Version)
>> >> 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
>> >> The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of
>> >> many holy people who had died were raised to life.
>>
>> >As you are an educated catholic, I assume you know that while the bible
>> >does not say what became of these saints, the gospel of nicodemus says
>> >they returned to their graves 3 days later, and I suspect that most
>> >catholic scholars would take that view.
>>
>> Nico saying 3 days may be THE error that kept it out of the gospels.
>>
>> And the bible does say they were raised to **LIFE**. If they were raised
>> pre-glorified Jesus, say from a lowly spot to a purgatory, it's still proper to
>> say they were raised to life.
>Yes. but we don't know what happened next, which amazes me that matthew
>does not say
Matthew didn't know. The gospels are records of what people said that Jesus
said. And they are clearly not records of everything Jesus said and did. John
21:25.
>> >But even if you don't, I don't see how you can say THIS was the
>> >resurrection given the fact that folks have died and been awaiting
>> >resurrection for 2000 years since, and certainly paul's words to the
>> >thessalonians are speaking of a future event
>>
>> Yes, the Day of the Lord.
>>
>> >> >If you mean 'raised' in the sense of taking them to heaven after the
>> >> >crucifixion, they were in sheol, where all souls were, with those in
>> >> >covenant with God in a good part of it, and the unrighteous in a bad
>> >> >part of it.
>>
>> >> I disagree.
>>
>> >> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
>> >> The Latin infernus (inferum, inferi), the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew sheol
>> >> correspond to the word hell.
>>
>> >But HELL isn't the place of eternal perdition. That's the lake of fire
>> >spoken of in revelation. The hades/sheol spoken of is the abode of the
>> >dead before the judgment. I know we commonly use it as an
>> >all-encompassing word for eternal perdition, but technically it's the
>> >place one would go to BEFORE judgment.
>>
>> Forget hades/sheol/lake of fire/high land/low land. There's only two places -
>> the saved with God or the damned with satan. Those who die separated from God
>> (in mortal sin) go directly to hell.
>
>But not the lake of fire, which gets filled at the last judgment
I submit that the first judgment (particular Heb 9:27) is the last judgment for
those relegated to hell at death. And further, that the last judgment (general
Rev 21:27) is only for the saved where they stand face to face with their
sinfulness in purgatory.
>> Those who die completely in Christ go
>> directly to God. Those others that are all of us must be purified first to
>> stand before God.
>And that there is an arguable issue. Perhps. Perhps not. The bible does
>not explicitly say that, but one might infer that and argue the case.
>What we CAN seem to say with reasonable certainty is that the RCC view
>of purgatory does not hold up to scripture, in that it is a prolonged
>process that can take centuries, with prayers and alms for the dead all
>that time helping those there get out. The Bible really does not affirm
>those ideas
Of course it does. The bible clearly says about a purging:
Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
1Cor 3:13
13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.
It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's
work.
1 John 1:8-10 makes it clear that we die as sinners. And for sure we have the
human nature to sin well tattooed on our soul.
>> It is not for man to know if "directly to hell" is instantaneous or a billion
>> man years. The same is true of standing face to face with God. It is not for
>> man to know the time frame for the dead in Christ who rose when Christ died is a
>> quick or long trip or a round about trip when they were raised to life.
>>
>> >So the rich man is in "hell", yes, but he still has the lake of fire
>> >awaiting him, which is much worse.
>>
>> Three places - heaven, hell, purification. Those dying in mortal sin never make
>> it to purification. Mat 12:32.
>Apparently they can: 2 macc 12(?), where the guys being prayed for are
>idolators, which is mortal sin
>So either someone in the mortal sin of idolatry CAN go to purgatory, or
>that passage is not a good proof text to use since it refutes catholic
>teaching on the subject
2Mac 12:40 has prayers asking that the dead soldiers be released from their
sins. That's the point. Judas couldn't know the actual state of their souls,
or the nature of their sins but that he believed, as a Jew, that prayer for them
was proper. Only God knew that.
>> >Are you saying that pope john paul (or any righteous departed catholic)
>> >has a resurrected physical body at this time?
>> Absolutely yes, subject to the state of his soul being pure. And not just
>> Catholics but all people of all faiths and non-faiths everywhere. Those are the
>> canonized saints.
>Is this a catholic teaching?? Can you give me a source for it?
Let me rephrase. Canonized saints are already in heaven, by definition. OTOH,
I've never heard a Catholic priest deny the possibility of salvation for
non-Christians. Jesus said he is the only way to the Father, not that one had
to be a Christian.
>Nope:
Interesting. I thought Protestants thought we already were in the kingdom of
God. But not that it's heaven. We Catholics never talk about such a thing.
Nobody knows.
I would think that Jesus tasting death for every man would put us in the kingdom
of God. Jesus is glorified, and raised to the Father, and we are buried with
him to sin in baptism in hopes of following him to the Father.
>> We now live under the new covenant of love of God, written on our hearts and not
>> by the sacrifice of bulls..
>Yeah. That's the NEW COVENANT, not the miessianic kingdom
Agreed, and we are currently of the Body of Christ.
Those in serious sin worship satan. See A&E. They told God "no", that they'll
decide right from wrong and not he. If we die in a state of telling God "no",
we are satan, we are blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
>> >So you can make the argument the RCC way, but as is so often the case
>> >with purgatory arguments, it does not seem to be that strong, nor does
>> >it exclude other arguments
>> Heaven, hell, and purification.
>"purification" might indeed be argued. PURGATORY (as defined) is the
>problem
Now, now. We're dealing with the mind of a goat herder 2000 years ago. Purging
and purifying are the same thing. That a "place" exists, or not, is not the
issue.
>> Why would God restrict his love for his newborn creation that dies unbaptized?
>> He is unable to sin. But he still possesses the stain of original sin.
>Different issue. I'm talking about adults.
And I'm talking about both. Certainly an adult who submits to baptism has
attained a desire via knowledge. Catholics do the same in Confirmation where
youth previous receiving John's baptism at birth now make their own baptismal
promises as one mature enough to know what he's doing.
> Paul clearly indicates they
>must hear/receive Christ to be saved, the RCC says they don't have to,
>but can cooperate with the inner grace of God and die in a state of
>grace.
Why "must", but instead "do"? As far as dying in the state of grace, 1 John
1:8-10 pretty much eliminates that.
>FOOEY, as my jewish friend rob would say
I agree, FOOEY as far as dying in the state of grace. Only God knows.
>> >8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in
>> >thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
>> >9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
>> >believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
>> >shalt be saved.
>> Definitely the case for the grown man.
>> And he also says that our new marching orders are that we love one another as he
>> loves us.
>> >10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
>> >mouth confession is made unto salvation.
>> >11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
>> >ashamed.
>> >12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the
>> >same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
>>
>> Yes, of course, and why send the infants to burn in hell because they died sans
>> baptism?
>Based on deut 1:39, i would say they go to heaven.
Deut is for Jews. Christ is for Christians, where the covenant is written on
the heart and not on stone tablets.
>> No, the bible doesn't. I often enjoy pointing out how many sin-filled
>> Christians will gnash their teeth in unbelief when they go to hell while
>> non-Christians who live in the spirit of Christ go to heaven.
>impossible. period. NO non-christian is going to heaven. Period. End of
>story. Not one jew. Not one moslem. Not one atheist. Not one hindu. No
>one nothing. ONLY Christians in covenant with God thru faith in Christ
>will be there.
Sorry. Jesus said "I give you a new command, that you love one another as I
have loved you." Jews, atheists, hindus, muslims "can" live in the spirit of
Christ as well as any baptized person. After all, they are God's children
also.
>See the parable in matt 22 about the wedding garment handed out at the
>gate (Christ), where a guy who did not come thru that gate and get the
>garment was thrown out even though he was invited in with the rest!
Nice parable about God's invitation, but not every non-Christian worships satan.
>> >By the way, the catholic church I grew up in the 50-60s taught everyone
>> >but catholics were certainly going to hell.Period. At least, the
>> >catholic churches i knew did.
>> I suggest that word is (c)atholic and not (C)atholic.
>huh?? You mean you're not a ROMAN catholic? You're some sort of
>orthodox?
(c)atholic means "ONE church", with the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments.
RWKnapp
> "RWKnapp" < wrotewww.pioneers-for-jesus.org
I am not sure who that Ray Knapp was, their were a few people that
used the name "Knapp" I am the Chairman of the board and never was
sent home by anyone or any group etc. So I can not be that person.
I like Burger King for the meals, nothing else, that guy must be weird
if he took a bath in dishwater and never worked for such a place.
No one has been able to kick me or hurt me, I am big enough and
trained to win any fight, and never lost one either.
Anyone that wants to know where I am, only needs to look, it is posted
and has been since the BBS days and since the Internet went online. I
buy fruit, I pay others to do any picking of such. So seems you never
met me and have no idea who you posting to.
My Children are business managers and own companies and are very
successful. Something by your post, you are not.
If you run my full name on the Internet you will find over 75 people
with that name from all over the States.
I do know a Ray Knapp that lives in W.V and a Raymond Knapp that lived
in NEB., also a town called Knapp with lots of Knapp's and none that I
know is family.
Enjoy looking it is interesting.
RWKnapp
> "RWKnapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote
>
> Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
> from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact.
>
> PB - OK, show me now....
> Give me a reference....
> -----------
> The bible show
> and the scriptures are locked in on the bible which the Catholic do
> not follow or want to read. Check the out. Lev 26:1
> 26
> 'You shall not make idols for yourselves;
> neither a carved image nor a sacred pillar shall you rear up for
> yourselves;
> nor shall you set up an engraved stone in your land, to bow down to
> it;
> for I am the Lord your God. NKJV
>
> PRB -- Catholics don't bow down to "images " or "idols."
Then you better tell that to the folks in the Philippines as they do
all that and even have books full of them doing just that. Your
statement is false.
>
> -------------------
> Even you Pope bow' down to engraved images made of stone, and wood
> etc.
>
> PRB - <Yawn> same song, different day....
> Catholics worship statues!" People still make this ridiculous claim. Because
> Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are
> violating God's commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image
> or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
> beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to
> them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4-5); "Alas, this people have sinned a great
> sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold" (Ex. 32:31).
> It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are
> committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of
> Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the
There is no image of Christ or Saints past, so what ever you call a
image of Christ etc, are false and have no foundation in facts.
> Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.
> Anti-Catholic writer Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, makes
> the blanket statement, "God has forbidden the use of images in worship"
> (281). Yet if people were to "search the scriptures" (cf. John 5:39), they
> would find the opposite is true. God forbade the worship of statues, but he
> did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded
> their use in religious contexts!
Lots of double talk, only shows the blind lead the bind.
>
> God Said To Make Them
Never not one, the Cerebrums were in a closed room in the Holy of
Hollies, and no person could look on them or they would die. No one
not even the Priest were to look at them. So no one could make them
as a image to knee down to.
>
> People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where
> the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make
> two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work
> shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on
> the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat
> shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out
> their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their
> faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim
> be" (Ex. 25:18-20).
So read it again and see where they were in the Tent or Tabernacle or
even the Temple. No person seen them or touch them. Then the images
that the Church uses are not given by God they are images of man and
woman people that God told people NOT to make. Even a Angel is not
listed to be made or seen in the form of any image. They are works of
men, and are ordered by God not to make, of any thing in heaven or on
earth.
> David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold,
> and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that
> spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this
Using gold to build a altar or a chariot is not something people
worship or pray to, a Golden calf was made and Moses had it broken up
and them that made such a image were killed.
> he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all
> the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18-19). David's plan
> for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of
> the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
> Similarly Ezekiel 41:17-18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized
> temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in
> the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."
Ex 20:4-6
4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image — any likeness of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them
nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth
generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to
those who love Me and keep My commandments. NKJV
Hos 13:2
2 Now they sin more and more,
And have made for themselves molded images,
Idols of their silver, according to their skill;
All of it is the work of craftsmen.
They say of them,
"Let the men who sacrifice kiss the calves!" NKJV
>
> The Religious Uses of Images
> During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus,
> God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole;
> and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a
> bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would
> look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8-9).
> One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which
> shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious
> decorations.
No one touch that serpent statue, that image of bronze never was seen
again and never used in a building or temple or Church.
> Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the
> person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one's mother by
> looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints
> by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching
All the images used are not pictures as no one has such, no one
painted such at the time they lived, who are these fake saints and
even the Mother of Jesus that Image of Mary, is not Mary it could be
any woman, a sinner a evil person since there is no image of Mary or
Jesus or any of the so called saints. God said not to make them, the
catholics disobey God and made such images and call them names of
Saints and such.
> tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction
> of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible
> pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues
> to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have
> three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
Nice point. They should not use such pictures either, since those
people are not the image or from any picture of the real person.
> If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these "graven"
> images, they would be practicing the "idolatry" of which they accuse
> Catholics. But there's no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids
> the worship of images as gods, but he doesn't ban the making of images. If
Hos 13:2
2 Now they sin more and more,
And have made for themselves molded images,
Idols of their silver, according to their skill;
All of it is the work of craftsmen.
They say of them,
"Let the men who sacrifice kiss the calves!"
NKJV
> he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar
> things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God
> does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.
Sure he does forbid them.
> It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes
> angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a
> snake-god (whom they named "Nehushtan"), the righteous king Hezekiah had it
> destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4).
>
> What About Bowing?
>
> Sometimes anti-Catholics cite Deuteronomy 5:9, where God said concerning
> idols, "You shall not bow down to them." Since many Catholics sometimes bow
> or kneel in front of statues of Jesus and the saints, anti-Catholics confuse
Since that Statue IS NOT JESUS but some imaginary image of some guy
that does not even look Jewish. Same with Mary a nice lady from the
UK or some other white long nose with a face like the European not a
Jewish woman, or one from Asia.
> the legitimate veneration of a sacred image with the sin of idolatry.
> Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is
No such thing for veneration or is any image sacred that is pure sin
to even say such things.
> worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent
> of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king
> without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel
> in front of a statue while praying isn't worshipping the statue or even
> praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his
> hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it.
One knee before a image of Mary, then talk to that image and pray the
Rosary over and over again telling to that image calling it Hail Mary
full of grace the Lord is with thee,........ A MASS can not be said
with out such prayers to images and saints. God is the only one that
can answer prayer and the only one that the Bible says to pray to and
only Jesus can bring on to God no one else.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life.
No one comes to the Father except through Me. NKJV
Col 3:16-17
16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching
and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. 17 And whatever you do
in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks
to God the Father through Him. NKJV
We are only to pray to JESUS CHRIST as this is what Jesus said to do.
John 14:13-14
13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father
may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask anything in My name, I
will do it. NKJV
1 John 5:14-15
14 Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask
anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He
hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we
have asked of Him. NKJV
No one else are we to pray to, or honor with our prayers, only Jesus,
God can hear and answers what we ask Him. Not some saint or even Mary
or some image of stone, clay or painting etc.
Florence B. Nitengail
>
>>When the ressurrection occurs. Read your bible.
>
> It's already "happened" for untold millions. Try reading your bible.
I already did. Judgment day has not yet come or we would not be here
debating on the BS the RCC dreamed up.
Florence B. Nitengail
"Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
news:HJqdncvSX9aS86fW...@posted.localnet...
> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote >
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
>>> Purgatory is scriptural; limbo is not.
>>
>> There is no purgatory in the Bible. This is a construct of the RCC
>
> The word Purgatory isn't in the Bible.
> The word isn't in the Bible but the inference to this place, Purgatory,
> is.
Only in the mind of your past Pope who dreamed it up. According to Ec the
dead know nothing. Read your bible. They're not alive and conscious and
sitting around some place called "purgatory." Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the
living know that they will die, but the but the dead know nothing
The living at least know they will die, but the dead know nothing. .... etc.
Bible makes it clear dead are concious of nothing at all. Ec 9:5 No
purgatory dreamed up by some Pope.
SNIP! I've seen it all and read it all and there is no mention of people
dying and waking up in a "purgatory." Everyone wakes up during the
resurrection and judgment.
duke
>On Dec 28, 1:04�pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>> "RWKnapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote
>>
>> Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
>> from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact.
>>
>> PB - OK, show me now....
>> Give me a reference....
>> -----------
>> The bible show
>> and the scriptures are locked in on the bible which the Catholic do
>> not follow or want to read. �Check the out. �Lev 26:1
>> 26
>> 'You shall not make idols for yourselves;
>> neither a carved image nor a sacred pillar shall you rear up for
>> yourselves;
>> nor shall you set up an engraved stone in your land, to bow down to
>> it;
>> for I am the Lord your God. NKJV
>>
>> PRB -- Catholics don't bow down to "images " or "idols."
>
>Then you better tell that to the folks in the Philippines as they do
>all that and even have books full of them doing just that. Your
>statement is false.
Surprise: They're not bowing to the statue. Any more than you are talking to a
photo of a deceased loved one.
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:17hmj55du7apsslls...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>When the ressurrection occurs. Read your bible.
>>
>> It's already "happened" for untold millions. Try reading your bible.
>
>I already did. Judgment day has not yet come or we would not be here
>debating on the BS the RCC dreamed up.
Judgment day is individual at the time of physical death. Read your bible.
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>"Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>news:HJqdncvSX9aS86fW...@posted.localnet...
>> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote >
>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>> Purgatory is scriptural; limbo is not.
>>>
>>> There is no purgatory in the Bible. This is a construct of the RCC
>>
>> The word Purgatory isn't in the Bible.
>> The word isn't in the Bible but the inference to this place, Purgatory,
>> is.
>
>Only in the mind of your past Pope who dreamed it up. According to Ec the
>dead know nothing. Read your bible.
The bible is where the purification is identified before one can stand before
God.
>SNIP! I've seen it all and read it all and there is no mention of people
>dying and waking up in a "purgatory." Everyone wakes up during the
>resurrection and judgment.
Dying and waking up???
Patrick
On Dec 28, 1:18 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> "RWKnapp" < wrotewww.pioneers-for-jesus.org
>
> Good Golly.
> Are you the same Ray Knapp who was the BIG missionary in
> the Philippines and was sent home? Are you the dishwasher at
> Burger King who took a bath in the dishwater?
> I kicked your ass several years ago. Do you need another lesson
> in humility? Where are you now? Texas? California? Are you
> still picking fruit? Are you still all so proud about yer kids?
I am not sure who that Ray Knapp was, their were a few people that
used the name "Knapp" I am the Chairman of the board and never was
sent home by anyone or any group etc. So I can not be that person.
Enjoy looking it is interesting.
PB - Both of us know who you are.
You do seem somewhat subdued after your beatings though.
Perhaps you have learned to be nicer to others.
Patrick
> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>>>> Purgatory is scriptural; limbo is not.
>>>
>>> There is no purgatory in the Bible. This is a construct of the RCC
>>
>> The word Purgatory isn't in the Bible.
>> The word isn't in the Bible but the inference to this place, Purgatory,
>> is.
>
> Only in the mind of your past Pope who dreamed it up. According to Ec the
> dead know nothing. Read your bible. They're not alive and conscious and
> sitting around some place called "purgatory." Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the
> living know that they will die, but the but the dead know nothing
> The living at least know they will die, but the dead know nothing. ....
> etc.
> Bible makes it clear dead are concious of nothing at all.
Perhaps you should read the New Testament where Peter
asked Jesus if he could set up tents for a couple
of "dead guys" who met Him on a mountain.......
Florence B. Nitengail
Your nonsensical bullcrap about a mythical "Purgatory" snipped.
Purgatory only exists in the mind of some past Pope who dreamed it up. Read
your bible.
According to Ec the
dead know nothing. Read your bible. They're not alive and conscious and
sitting around some place called "purgatory." Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the
living know that they will die, but the but the dead know nothing
The living at least know they will die, but the dead know nothing. .... etc.
Bible makes it clear dead are conscious of nothing at all. Ec 9:5 No
Florence B. Nitengail
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 02:15:52 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>I already did. Judgment day has not yet come or we would not be here
>>debating on the BS the RCC dreamed up.
>
> Judgment day is individual at the time of physical death. Read your
> bible.
I already did, unlike you. Judgment day has not yet come or we would not be
here
debating on the self-serving BS the RCC dreamed up.
Florence B. Nitengail
Perhaps you should read Ec for yourself.
Purgatory exists only in the mind of some past Pope who dreamed it up. Read
your bible.
According to Ec the
dead know nothing. **Read your bible.** They're not alive and conscious
and
sitting around some place called "purgatory." Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the
living know that they will die, but the but the dead know nothing
The living at least know they will die, but the dead know nothing. .... etc.
Bible makes it clear dead are conscious of nothing at all. Ec 9:5 No
RWKnapp
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:57:22 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 28, 1:04 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> >> "RWKnapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote
>
> >> Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
> >> from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact.
>
> >> PB - OK, show me now....
> >> Give me a reference....
> >> -----------
> >> The bible show
> >> and the scriptures are locked in on the bible which the Catholic do
> >> not follow or want to read. Check the out. Lev 26:1
> >> 26
> >> 'You shall not make idols for yourselves;
> >> neither a carved image nor a sacred pillar shall you rear up for
> >> yourselves;
> >> nor shall you set up an engraved stone in your land, to bow down to
> >> it;
> >> for I am the Lord your God. NKJV
>
> >> PRB -- Catholics don't bow down to "images " or "idols."
>
> >Then you better tell that to the folks in the Philippines as they do
> >all that and even have books full of them doing just that. Your
> >statement is false.
>
> Surprise: They're not bowing to the statue. Any more than you are talking to a
> photo of a deceased loved one.
I never talk to photo's or the dead, which bring us back to you folks
do bow to statues, I do neither.
RWKnapp
> "RWKnapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote .
You lie, and you could not beat me even in a game. It sounds like you
are playing both parts since if one is so bad he would of whipped you
real bad, and it seems you imagination is all you have.
RWKnapp
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:37:53 -0800, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:16:36 -0800, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> I'm starting over on this response. The reason is that **we're** trying to
> >> quantify events after death, which is wishful thinking. We don't know, and we
> >> can't impact in what it means.
>
> >> First, I gather you investigated becoming a Catholic (RCIA class). Did you
> >> become Catholic? {ps - I see at the end that you are/were Catholic}.
> >I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
> >Today i am an evangelical with good memories of the catholic church,
> >though I reject its claim of infallibility, and teach against some of
> >its bad doctrines.
>
> What is a "spiritualist medium"?
Hi Duke, I was told such is a person that deals with spirits of the
dead and demons, and the Medium is one that is in between so that
person surrenders their body to the spirit of dead speak thru them.
They tell people that the ghost of people are alive and are always
with so they can connect like a cellphone does and they will tell you
what you died friend or family member forgot to tell you when they
were still living on earth. The Bible condemns then when I think it
was Saul was suppose to called by a medium.
Lev 20:27
27 'A man or a woman who is a medium, or who has familiar spirits,
shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones. Their
blood shall be upon them.'" NKJV
Deut 18:10-14
10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his
daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a
soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who
conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the
dead. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord,
and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out
from before you. 13 You shall be blameless before the Lord your God.
14 For these nations which you will dispossess listened to soothsayers
and diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not appointed such
for you.
NKJV
1 Chron 10:13-14
13 So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against
the Lord, because he did not keep the word of the Lord, and also
because he consulted a medium for guidance. NKJV
Hope that helps.
> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
> doctrine.
Like any group just because the members of that group spent years in
research does not make them collect, look at the Buddhist religion,
they date back to the with in 500 years after Abraham time. Making
their teachings over four thousand years old, not as long as the Old
Testament, and Jewish people could of shown Buddha the Word of God.
Many of the teachings are about the same as found in Proverbs, and
originally they did believe only ONE GOD.
Patrick
>>> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>> Purgatory is scriptural; limbo is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no purgatory in the Bible. This is a construct of the RCC
>>>>
>>>> The word Purgatory isn't in the Bible.
>>>> The word isn't in the Bible but the inference to this place, Purgatory,
>>>> is.
>>>
>>> Only in the mind of your past Pope who dreamed it up. According to Ec
>>> the dead know nothing. Read your bible. They're not alive and conscious
>>> and sitting around some place called "purgatory." Ecclesiastes 9:5 For
>>> the living know that they will die, but the but the dead know nothing
>>> The living at least know they will die, but the dead know nothing. ....
>>> etc.
>>> Bible makes it clear dead are concious of nothing at all.
>>
>> Perhaps you should read the New Testament where Peter
>> asked Jesus if he could set up tents for a couple
>> of "dead guys" who met Him on a mountain.......
>
> Perhaps you should read Ec for yourself.
Right after you read about Jesus meeting the dead guys.
> Purgatory exists only in the mind of some past Pope who dreamed it up.
> Read your bible.
> According to Ec the
> dead know nothing. **Read your bible.** They're not alive and conscious
> and
> sitting around some place called "purgatory." Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the
> living know that they will die, but the but the dead know nothing
> The living at least know they will die, but the dead know nothing. ....
> etc.
> Bible makes it clear dead are conscious of nothing at all. Ec 9:5 No
> purgatory dreamed up by some Pope.
I provided a shitload of references earlier.
Would you like them again?
Bob Young
On 1/1/10 7:14 AM, in article
4022b0cf-b8a7-401d...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
<rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 8:37�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:37:53 -0800, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:16:36 -0800, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com>
>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm starting over on this response. �The reason is that **we're** trying to
>>>> quantify events after death, which is wishful thinking. �We don't know, and
>>>> we
>>>> can't impact in what it means.
>>
>>>> First, I gather you investigated becoming a Catholic (RCIA class). �Did you
>>>> become Catholic? �{ps - I see at the end that you are/were Catholic}.
>
>>> I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
>>> Today i am an evangelical with good memories of the catholic church,
>>> though I reject its claim of infallibility, and teach against some of
>>> its bad doctrines.
>>
>> What is a "spiritualist medium"?
>
> Hi Duke, I was told such is a person that deals with spirits of the
> dead and demons, and the Medium is one that is in between so that
> person surrenders their body to the spirit of dead speak thru them.
Ay indeed. More charlatanism and more reason for calling oneself an atheist.
> They tell people that the ghost of people are alive and are always
> with so they can connect like a cellphone does and they will tell you
> what you died friend or family member forgot to tell you when they
> were still living on earth. The Bible condemns then when I think it
> was Saul was suppose to called by a medium.
Of course they are/were condemned. We cant have that kind of silly
competition can we ?
> Lev 20:27
> 27 'A man or a woman who is a medium, or who has familiar spirits,
> shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones. Their
> blood shall be upon them.'" NKJV
Brings out the best in people - religions - eh ?
Had to smile at that - you folks talk here in terms of four thousand odd
years as being periods where current religions were thriving, disregarding
completely the fact that this planet and the humans, or their antecedents,
on it have been around for over six million years !
Do you folks concede that early humans almost surely had no method of verbal
communication, other than one or two recognizable grunts and that they lived
like this for millions of years virtually unchanged?
If you do then you will understand as well that man's fist ever gods were
only spoken about as they are today after man had achieved the ability to
express himself in a lucid manner - bringing us soundly back to the period
that your god was around i.e. About four thousand to six thousand years ago.
Too logical for yer' ? Maybe . . . . . but it's not too illogical for me.
Cheers
Bob
Bob Young
On 12/30/09 8:22 PM, in article 6dhmj5hn1bbdtncfi...@4ax.com,
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2009 23:08:01 -0600, Bob Young <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/28/09 9:44 PM, in article o5bhj51v8t8ktdbht...@4ax.com,
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:34:21 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
>>>>>> in Scripture.
>>>
>>>>> Don't be so stupid. �The Catholic Church is not only the Church that
>>>>> Christ
>>>>> founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church �that most fully follows
>>>>> scripture and locked in on the bible.
>>>
>>>> Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
>>>> from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact. Ask any Greek
>>>> Orthodox priest and he will let you know real quick.
>>>
>>> Ask the Roman Catholic Church today, including reading Church history for
>>> 2000
>>> years, and you will find out your error - real quick.
>
>>> Christ gave his Church on earth the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
>>> Thats 100% scriptural.
>
>> Which means it is 100% firmly ensconced in the section marked . .
>> 'Mythology and Fiction'
>
> Oh, well, that's your problem, not mine.
And your problem is and it's a big one, you cannot prove that anything in
The Scriptures is not mythology.
Your gonna have to get used to it.
duke
>> >I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
>Hope that helps.
I hope you're not doing that satan trick any more.
>> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
>> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
>> doctrine.
>Like any group just because the members of that group spent years in
>research does not make them collect, look at the Buddhist religion,
>they date back to the with in 500 years after Abraham time. Making
>their teachings over four thousand years old, not as long as the Old
>Testament, and Jewish people could of shown Buddha the Word of God.
>Many of the teachings are about the same as found in Proverbs, and
>originally they did believe only ONE GOD.
Actually they don't believe in any god.
But my point is that millions of manhours of research have gone into Scripture,
pulling all the parts together in an effort to understand God's message to us.
That being said, how can protestant individuals who by and large reject much of
scripture tell the RCC it's wrong?
>> >> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
>> >> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
>> >> etc.
>> >Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
>> >there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
>> Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. �I am always amused at the way
>> some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
>> things.
No response? To me, it's clear. We are born, we live, we die. Only one man
went to the other side and came back to talk about it. That's Christ. To us,
it has no value in details. Those details are of God only.
duke
>And your problem is and it's a big one, you cannot prove that anything in
>The Scriptures is not mythology.
>Your gonna have to get used to it.
And your problem is a big one, that only volunteers go to hell.
You're going to have to get used to that.
duke
No, we do not, any more than you communicate with a photo.
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:4c5pj5t8ut4ub294s...@4ax.com... Nothing worth repeating!
>Your nonsensical bullcrap about a mythical "Purgatory" snipped.
Tsk, tsk, fn. It's not a matter of a place. It's a matter of a purification.
But when talking to a goat herder that lived a few thousand years ago, words had
to be used for his benefit, not ours.
>Purgatory only exists in the mind of some past Pope who dreamed it up. Read
>your bible.
You admitted you snipped my words from the bible re purification.
>According to Ec the
>dead know nothing. Read your bible. They're not alive and conscious and
>sitting around some place called "purgatory." Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the
>living know that they will die, but the but the dead know nothing
>The living at least know they will die, but the dead know nothing. .... etc.
>Bible makes it clear dead are conscious of nothing at all. Ec 9:5 No
>purgatory dreamed up by some Pope.
I'm a Christian. I go by the NT and the new covenant given us by Christ.
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:r95pj55pj2i606oih...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 02:15:52 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>>I already did. Judgment day has not yet come or we would not be here
>>>debating on the BS the RCC dreamed up.
>>
>> Judgment day is individual at the time of physical death. Read your
>> bible.
>
>I already did, unlike you. Judgment day has not yet come or we would not be
>here debating on the self-serving BS the RCC dreamed up.
Judgement day comes to each of us at the moment of death of the body shell. The
Jews that died in the friendship of God were raised to new life at the moment
Jesus died on the cross. Read your bible.
Here's a hint. This is in the NT, Matthew.
vince garcia
>
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:37:53 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:16:36 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm starting over on this response. The reason is that **we're** trying to
> >> quantify events after death, which is wishful thinking. We don't know, and we
> >> can't impact in what it means.
> >>
> >> First, I gather you investigated becoming a Catholic (RCIA class). Did you
> >> become Catholic? {ps - I see at the end that you are/were Catholic}.
>
> >I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
> >Today i am an evangelical with good memories of the catholic church,
> >though I reject its claim of infallibility, and teach against some of
> >its bad doctrines.
>
> What is a "spiritualist medium"?
Randy did a good job of explaining it. Otherwise, look at some of the
supernatural reality shows where they bring in a psychic to commune with
"ghosts"
>
> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
> doctrine.
The authority is the scripture, which the RCC perverts, denies or
contradicts on some issues. I gave you one example.
Another example would be mandating preistly celebacy when even
Paul--whom they appeal to--said bishops MUST be the husband of one wife;
and Paul himself never REQUIRED any minister or bishop to be unmarried.
>
> >> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
> >> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
> >> etc.
>
> >Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
> >there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
>
> Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. I am always amused at the way
> some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
> things.
Bible's reasonably clear on it
the Day of the
> >> Lord had already passed. However, the resurrection of the Lord had already
> >> taken place.
>
> >I honestly don't know how you're getting that. that's not a view taught
> >by the RCC that I've ever heard. Can you give me a reference?
>
> Which part?
The part about you getting your perfected physical body as soon as you
get to heaven. The RCC i'm sure does not teach this.
> >But not the lake of fire, which gets filled at the last judgment
>
> I submit that the first judgment (particular Heb 9:27) is the last judgment for
> those relegated to hell at death.
Well, the RCC position is that there is a speicific judgment at death,
then go to a bad place for the sinner, then the general judgment comes
at the end of time, and you go to a worse place:
the Catholic Encyclopedia says "Few truths are more often or more
clearly proclaimed in Scripture than that of the general judgment".
When the individual dies, general judgment holds that the person's final
dispensation will await the general judgment of the dead at the end of
the world, rather than be judged immediately.
And further, that the last judgment (general
> Rev 21:27) is only for the saved where they stand face to face with their
> sinfulness in purgatory.
Not what the catholic encyclopedia says
> >What we CAN seem to say with reasonable certainty is that the RCC view
> >of purgatory does not hold up to scripture, in that it is a prolonged
> >process that can take centuries, with prayers and alms for the dead all
> >that time helping those there get out. The Bible really does not affirm
> >those ideas
>
> Of course it does. The bible clearly says about a purging:
>
> Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
> Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
> Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
> Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
>
> 1Cor 3:13
> 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.
> It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's
> work.
See how weak the argument is? Those verses don't make the point at all,
and are the best you can do to try and force the point to be made.
That's what happens when you try and teach purgatory.
> Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
jn 15 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
>
> 1 John 1:8-10 makes it clear that we die as sinners. And for sure we have the
> human nature to sin well tattooed on our soul.
Reread vs 9 and the part about "cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness"
Not talking about purgatory since the person is obviously still alive to
confess his sins, and so the cleansing comes while the guy IS still
alive.
We could go on and on, but it's still true that the scriptural arguments
for purgatory are so weak that they really have no good merit.
> >Apparently they can: 2 macc 12(?), where the guys being prayed for are
> >idolators, which is mortal sin
>
> >So either someone in the mortal sin of idolatry CAN go to purgatory, or
> >that passage is not a good proof text to use since it refutes catholic
> >teaching on the subject
>
> 2Mac 12:40 has prayers asking that the dead soldiers be released from their
> sins. That's the point.
And I could, if I wanted to (and if I considered 2 Macc. inspired
scripture), make the point that the inspiration behind the thought
wasn't purgatory, but that the messiah come and take the departed
covenant people--the jews--from abraham's bosm, where they were
separtated fom God, to heaven.
I don't consider intertestamental books to be fully inspired,* so i
don't need to reconcile evangelical theology with them...tho I actually
could if i DID need to.
* Here's just one reason the apocrypha is not fully inspired: In the
apocrypha, the ark of the covenant was said to be hidden by jeremiah on
mt Nebo until the end of the age, when it would be found again
Well, just compare that thought to the REAL scripture of jeremiah 3:16,
and you'll see the apocrypha has errors, and thus is not infallible.
>
> Interesting. I thought Protestants thought we already were in the kingdom of
> God.
Preterists do. I'm not one.
But not that it's heaven. We Catholics never talk about such a thing.
> Nobody knows.
>
> I would think that Jesus tasting death for every man would put us in the kingdom
> of God. Jesus is glorified, and raised to the Father, and we are buried with
> him to sin in baptism in hopes of following him to the Father.
Not in hope--but of absolute assurance!
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son
of God; that ye MAY KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may
believe on the name of the Son of God.
ong as well as he can.
>
> >Uh. no--it is attributing the power of God to satan. Even the didache
> >takes a similar view, saying judging a propghet of God is the
> >unforgivable sin, and the didache is right from the time the apostles
> >were still living
>
> Those in serious sin worship satan. See A&E. They told God "no", that they'll
> decide right from wrong and not he. If we die in a state of telling God "no",
> we are satan, we are blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
That's not what the Sin is. sorry. But I acknowledge the pope thought
that.
>
> >> >So you can make the argument the RCC way, but as is so often the case
> >> >with purgatory arguments, it does not seem to be that strong, nor does
> >> >it exclude other arguments
>
> >> Heaven, hell, and purification.
>
> >"purification" might indeed be argued. PURGATORY (as defined) is the
> >problem
>
> Now, now. We're dealing with the mind of a goat herder 2000 years ago. Purging
> and purifying are the same thing. That a "place" exists, or not, is not the
> issue.
OK. And you cannot make a very good argument that it does. You can try,
but the argument is not very strong, and even weaker goes the argument
if you define the catholic verion of purgatory
>
> >> Why would God restrict his love for his newborn creation that dies unbaptized?
> >> He is unable to sin. But he still possesses the stain of original sin.
>
> >Different issue. I'm talking about adults.
>
> And I'm talking about both.
You can't lump them together.
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin
revived, and I died.
Even paul admits it was only after he was old enough to know right from
wrong did he enter a state of condemed sinner
Certainly an adult who submits to baptism has
> attained a desire via knowledge. Catholics do the same in Confirmation where
> youth previous receiving John's baptism at birth now make their own baptismal
> promises as one mature enough to know what he's doing.
>
> > Paul clearly indicates they
> >must hear/receive Christ to be saved, the RCC says they don't have to,
> >but can cooperate with the inner grace of God and die in a state of
> >grace.
>
> Why "must",
cuz paul says
but instead "do"? As far as dying in the state of grace, 1 John
> 1:8-10 pretty much eliminates that.
Your argument is with the RCC then; that's their doctrine, not mine
>
> >FOOEY, as my jewish friend rob would say
>
> I agree, FOOEY as far as dying in the state of grace. Only God knows.
>
> >> >8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in
> >> >thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
> >> >9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
> >> >believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
> >> >shalt be saved.
>
> >> Definitely the case for the grown man.
>
> >> And he also says that our new marching orders are that we love one another as he
> >> loves us.
>
> >> >10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
> >> >mouth confession is made unto salvation.
> >> >11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
> >> >ashamed.
> >> >12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the
> >> >same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
> >>
> >> Yes, of course, and why send the infants to burn in hell because they died sans
> >> baptism?
>
> >Based on deut 1:39, i would say they go to heaven.
>
> Deut is for Jews. Christ is for Christians, where the covenant is written on
> the heart and not on stone tablets.
ok...kinda leaves the sincere moslem out of it, huh?
>
> >> No, the bible doesn't. I often enjoy pointing out how many sin-filled
> >> Christians will gnash their teeth in unbelief when they go to hell while
> >> non-Christians who live in the spirit of Christ go to heaven.
>
> >impossible. period. NO non-christian is going to heaven. Period. End of
> >story. Not one jew. Not one moslem. Not one atheist. Not one hindu. No
> >one nothing. ONLY Christians in covenant with God thru faith in Christ
> >will be there.
>
> Sorry. Jesus said "I give you a new command, that you love one another as I
> have loved you." Jews, atheists, hindus, muslims "can" live in the spirit of
> Christ as well as any baptized person.
no. That's salvation through the works of righteous living. Does not
work.
After all, they are God's children
> also.
They are children of adam. And they can go to heaven or hell based on
their receipt or non-receipt of the gospel
>
> >See the parable in matt 22 about the wedding garment handed out at the
> >gate (Christ), where a guy who did not come thru that gate and get the
> >garment was thrown out even though he was invited in with the rest!
>
> Nice parable about God's invitation, but not every non-Christian worships satan.
Sure they do. Perhaps not knowingly, but a sincere moslem is still
following a religion that has a demonic spirit behind it.
The HOLY Spirit is not the spirit that invented Islam, Hinduism,
Atheism, rabinnic judaism, Shintoism, Buddhism, and so on. SATAN is the
guiding influence behind ALL other religions:
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice
to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have
fellowship with devils.
> >> >By the way, the catholic church I grew up in the 50-60s taught everyone
> >> >but catholics were certainly going to hell.Period. At least, the
> >> >catholic churches i knew did.
>
> >> I suggest that word is (c)atholic and not (C)atholic.
>
> >huh?? You mean you're not a ROMAN catholic? You're some sort of
> >orthodox?
>
> (c)atholic means "ONE church", with the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments.
So are you a rmoman catholic, in submission to the teaching magisterium
and pope, or not???
RWKnapp
>
> <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 8:37 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:37:53 -0800, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> duke wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:16:36 -0800, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com>
>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>> I'm starting over on this response. The reason is that **we're** trying to
> >>>> quantify events after death, which is wishful thinking. We don't know, and
> >>>> we
> >>>> can't impact in what it means.
>
> >>>> First, I gather you investigated becoming a Catholic (RCIA class). Did you
> >>>> become Catholic? {ps - I see at the end that you are/were Catholic}.
>
> >>> I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
> >>> Today i am an evangelical with good memories of the catholic church,
> >>> though I reject its claim of infallibility, and teach against some of
> >>> its bad doctrines.
>
> >> What is a "spiritualist medium"?
>
> > Hi Duke, I was told such is a person that deals with spirits of the
> > dead and demons, and the Medium is one that is in between so that
> > person surrenders their body to the spirit of dead speak thru them.
>
> Ay indeed. More charlatanism and more reason for calling oneself an atheist.
People call themselves all kind of name, what this shows me is to test
what people say and not be scammed. Your remarks do not hold water,
be like just because someone uses fake money from their printer or
counterfeit does not mean there is no real legal money that is real
and good and only a foolish one would accept what is false. They may
want to work for the FBI or some government to stop such false bills,
they do not use such to prove money is useless etc.
>
> > They tell people that the ghost of people are alive and are always
> > with so they can connect like a cellphone does and they will tell you
> > what you died friend or family member forgot to tell you when they
> > were still living on earth. The Bible condemns then when I think it
> > was Saul was suppose to called by a medium.
>
> Of course they are/were condemned. We cant have that kind of silly
> competition can we ?
Saul was not the medium, he called one, and that was silly, since he
knew God and like an atheist he did what he wanted and that made the
problem that ended his life, total waste of years. He chose to do
what he wanted with out Gods OK and in the end without God, which
seems to fit your story of being raised in a church then later
rejecting God as if that Church was some kind of god. Reject the
religion is fine, rejecting the creator is pure stupidity.
>
> > Lev 20:27
> > 27 'A man or a woman who is a medium, or who has familiar spirits,
> > shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones. Their
> > blood shall be upon them.'" NKJV
>
> Brings out the best in people - religions - eh ?
Yes it does, and shows how many people refuse to accept God and want
to find information outside of God, like atheist do, eh?
There is nothing written that is six million years old, not a paper,
book nothing such only came into being in thousands of years. Then
the Christian as the Jew have no problem with billions of years, if
you want to go that route, In the Beginning GOD! The beginning of the
worlds and all that is, has no date, and six million years, has
already been rejected. Since such can not be proven and the last time
I read a book on Evolution they are now into many billions of years,
showing they make it up and have nothing to prove what they said, so
why not start with this word, what ever day or date one wants, the
Beginning when God made it, has no date, the date only points to this
earth and moon and such that we can see. Well no need to go on with
that, six million or six thousands at least with the thousand there is
documentation.
>
> Do you folks concede that early humans almost surely had no method of verbal
> communication, other than one or two recognizable grunts and that they lived
> like this for millions of years virtually unchanged?
I can not speak for the other folks only myself as you only speak for
yourself. I will not agree, since they found caves with pictures and
tools that was left in them show they had a form of verbal or graphic
ways of communication. Since we do not have a tape recorder or
Computer DVD then one thing for sure the atheist has no prove they did
not verbal communicate. Like they say today "I would ratter see a
sermon then hear one" "A picture is worth a thousand words." I
worked with some natives that sound like all they do is grunt only
they also understand what the sound of that grunt means. My cat makes
sounds also, and after a while I learn to understand that sound means
he is hungry or clean my litter box now. If you do such to displease
the cat he sure lets one know and we understand by his grunts what is
being verbalized.
>
> If you do then you will understand as well that man's fist ever gods were
> only spoken about as they are today after man had achieved the ability to
> express himself in a lucid manner - bringing us soundly back to the period
> that your god was around i.e. About four thousand to six thousand years ago.
>
> Too logical for yer' ? Maybe . . . . . but it's not too illogical for me.
Very logical why would you think otherwise??? I do not see what you
think is disagreeable with that statement! Unless you had nothing to
say, and hope someone reading would agree or not agree, not thinking
about what you said.
> Cheers
Yes Cheers have another cup of tea or coffee.
Raymond.
>
> Bob
>
> and Jewish people could of shown Buddha the Word of God.
That may of been why the teaching on morals does sound like some was
copied from the Old Testament, I know today we do such and many have
converted to Christ and one Buddhist monk stopped us and wanted to
know about the Holy Spirit and the power that our God does for
people. Seems like he seen a service and people accepting Jesus, and
many lives turn from evil to good lives and honoring life and
family.
>
>
>
> > Many of the teachings are about the same as found in Proverbs, and
> > originally they did believe only ONE GOD.
>
Raymond
www.pioneers-for-jesus.org
RWKnapp
> On 12/30/09 8:22 PM, in article 6dhmj5hn1bbdtncfic1osucirmhgvft...@4ax.com,
>
>
>
>
>
> "duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On 29 Dec 2009 23:08:01 -0600, Bob Young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 12/28/09 9:44 PM, in article o5bhj51v8t8ktdbhtk8ocposn5n2qca...@4ax.com,
> >> "duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:34:21 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
> >>>>>> in Scripture.
>
> >>>>> Don't be so stupid. The Catholic Church is not only the Church that
> >>>>> Christ
> >>>>> founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church that most fully follows
> >>>>> scripture and locked in on the bible.
>
> >>>> Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
> >>>> from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact. Ask any Greek
> >>>> Orthodox priest and he will let you know real quick.
>
> >>> Ask the Roman Catholic Church today, including reading Church history for
> >>> 2000
> >>> years, and you will find out your error - real quick.
>
> >>> Christ gave his Church on earth the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
> >>> Thats 100% scriptural.
>
> >> Which means it is 100% firmly ensconced in the section marked . .
> >> 'Mythology and Fiction'
>
> > Oh, well, that's your problem, not mine.
>
> And your problem is and it's a big one, you cannot prove that anything in
> The Scriptures is not mythology.
>
> Your gonna have to get used to it.
You are not that ignorant to believe what you just wrote. "Anything
in the Scriptures" So Egypt, Israel, man, woman, house, horse, etc for
thousand of things, all are and were and still have the same names
today" You would call yourself a mythology example, I was going to
point out the name you use "YOUNG" is found in the Bible only it is
used thousands of times, I did not know where to start.
Heb 12:7-11
7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what
son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8 But if you are without
chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are
illegitimate and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we have had human fathers
who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more
readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For
they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He
for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. 11 Now no
chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful;
nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness
to those who have been trained by it. NKJV
So you see all that as mythology? If you had children and I believe
you said you did, did you punish them "chasten" and if you did, was it
joyful later when they obeyed you? No need to go on, you have
nothing but empty words, and silly generalized remarks that when
looked at, show ignorants of what they used to made a point only
foolish, lawyer in many law schools use the Holy Bible laws to learn
by. Military leaders even since 1918 on to today use the wars in the
Bible to learn how to attack and win a battle.
Nice talking to you Bob,
Raymond
RWKnapp
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:14:44 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >> >I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
> >Hope that helps.
>
> I hope you're not doing that satan trick any more.
Nope that is your way, when I let Jesus Christ into my life and I gave
all my life to God, I suppose one could say I did kick that old master
Satan and his tricks in the behind and Jesus tossed him away and set
his punishment to Hell and them that do as he does to follow satan in
to the lake of fire. So now why don't you do the same?
>
> >> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
> >> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
> >> doctrine.
> >Like any group just because the members of that group spent years in
> >research does not make them collect, look at the Buddhist religion,
> >they date back to the with in 500 years after Abraham time. Making
> >their teachings over four thousand years old, not as long as the Old
> >Testament, and Jewish people could of shown Buddha the Word of God.
> >Many of the teachings are about the same as found in Proverbs, and
> >originally they did believe only ONE GOD.
>
> Actually they don't believe in any god.
You seem not to know much about them Buddhist either, some do not have
any god, but many gods, in one temple that was near the town I lived
in for many years, had a Temple with 10,000 gods images all just a few
inches tall. All kind of images, if you do not see them as gods, they
did and like the Roman Catholic church they had images all over the
temple. I have talked to many monks and they with me, been to their
temples and such, so you seem to be ignorant or what they do and
believe and their history is much like the Catholic Church in these
matters. I have seen a Roman Catholic priest past a Buddha temple and
the only way to know who was who is the Catholic priest had a Rosary
and beads while the buddhist monk in the same color of robes and such
did not have on his long beads a rosary. Both bow to the images and
both say prayers and both take offerings for their prayers and such.
>
> But my point is that millions of manhours of research have gone into Scripture,
> pulling all the parts together in an effort to understand God's message to us.
> That being said, how can protestant individuals who by and large reject much of
> scripture tell the RCC it's wrong?
You believe your priest too much, the Protestant see that the Catholic
rejected much of the Scriptures and add to the Bible books that even
the Jews rejected they put into the Word of God, where St. John wrote
not to ADD to the Word of God. They do reject bowing to images and
praying to the dead saints and such, as wrong.
>
> >> >> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
> >> >> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
> >> >> etc.
> >> >Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
> >> >there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
> >> Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. I am always amused at the way
> >> some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
> >> things.
>
> No response? To me, it's clear. We are born, we live, we die. Only one man
> went to the other side and came back to talk about it. That's Christ. To us,
> it has no value in details. Those details are of God only.
NO RESPONSE? You got to be blind or talking to someone else, I always
have an response, just because you do not accept them or disagree,
doesn't mean anything you get a response, if I see your post. We are
born to die. Simple as that. Jesus did just that, then you seem to
forget that Jesus Moses and Abraham who had died and went to heaven,
did show up on a mountain and the Apostles seen them so they did come
back and bible does talk about it. I not sure what you think you mean
by the "To us it has no value in details. Those details are of God
only?" All that the Holy Word of God the Bible has to say should mean
and have value to them that say they are believers in Christ Jesus.
Raymond
Patrick
news:4f41ff69-cf35-4ca8...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
PB _ You are dismissed, once again.
I'll call you when I need more entertainment.
Bob Young
On 1/2/10 1:48 AM, in article
db4adede-32e7-4af0...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
<rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
And nothing written from two thousand+ years ago either.
Then
> the Christian as the Jew have no problem with billions of years, if
> you want to go that route, In the Beginning GOD! The beginning of the
> worlds and all that is, has no date, and six million years, has
> already been rejected. Since such can not be proven and the last time
> I read a book on Evolution they are now into many billions of years,
> showing they make it up and have nothing to prove what they said, so
> why not start with this word, what ever day or date one wants, the
> Beginning when God made it, has no date, the date only points to this
> earth and moon and such that we can see. Well no need to go on with
> that, six million or six thousands at least with the thousand there is
> documentation.
Yet you still tell the adam and Eve story. Which way do you want things to
be then ?
>
>>
>> Do you folks concede that early humans almost surely had no method of verbal
>> communication, other than one or two recognizable grunts and that they lived
>> like this for millions of years virtually unchanged?
>
> I can not speak for the other folks only myself as you only speak for
> yourself. I will not agree, since they found caves with pictures and
> tools that was left in them show they had a form of verbal or graphic
> ways of communication.
I was going much further back than that, and being able to paint does not
prove the ability to converse since no characters are found in early cave
paintings.
Since we do not have a tape recorder or
> Computer DVD then one thing for sure the atheist has no prove they did
> not verbal communicate.
Yes it's that nasty old common sense thing rearing it's ugly head again
Raymond !
Like they say today "I would ratter see a
> sermon then hear one" "A picture is worth a thousand words." I
> worked with some natives that sound like all they do is grunt only
> they also understand what the sound of that grunt means. My cat makes
> sounds also, and after a while I learn to understand that sound means
> he is hungry or clean my litter box now. If you do such to displease
> the cat he sure lets one know and we understand by his grunts what is
> being verbalized.
Smile - one needs to be able to do more than grunt to make up a religion
Raymond. The first thing one has to be able to say and claim is that there
are 'Evil spirits out there in the forest'
Today we can ignore that fact that the sounds these poor early huamns heard
as they slept together full of fear was no doubt two tree branches rubbing
together in the breeze making a groaning sound
>
>>
>> If you do then you will understand as well that man's fist ever gods were
>> only spoken about as they are today after man had achieved the ability to
>> express himself in a lucid manner - bringing us soundly back to the period
>> that your god was around i.e. About four thousand to six thousand years ago.
>>
>> Too logical for yer' ? �Maybe . . . . . �but it's not too illogical for me.
>
> Very logical why would you think otherwise??? I do not see what you
> think is disagreeable with that statement! Unless you had nothing to
> say, and hope someone reading would agree or not agree, not thinking
> about what you said.
>
>> Cheers
>
> Yes Cheers have another cup of tea or coffee.
I used to enjoy one Guinness a day with my dinner but Doc Choi says it is
not a good idea, so that has gone forever.
Cheers
duke
>On Jan 1, 7:29�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:14:44 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>> >> >I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
>> >Hope that helps.
>> I hope you're not doing that satan trick any more.
>Nope that is your way, when I let Jesus Christ into my life and I gave
>all my life to God, I suppose one could say I did kick that old master
>Satan and his tricks in the behind and Jesus tossed him away and set
>his punishment to Hell and them that do as he does to follow satan in
>to the lake of fire. So now why don't you do the same?
Letting Jesus into your life is a huge leap forward from being a satanist
spiritual medium.
But it's more than letting Jesus into your life. It's a matter of following
Jesus by living in his spirit. Protestants like to talk about there being
nothing we can do re salvation, but the truth is that we have everything to do
with losing that salvation. In fact, scripture clearly says that if we want to
he his disciple, we must repent of our sins, PICK UP OUR OWN CROSS, and follow
him in service to God and mankind. John 13:34, Mat 7:21, Mat 25:31-46.
And 1 JOhn 1:9-10 clearly says we live a life of sin. So loss of salvation
rests solely in our hands. Heb 10:26-27. Choose wisely.
>> >> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
>> >> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
>> >> doctrine.
>> >Like any group just because the members of that group spent years in
>> >research does not make them collect, look at the Buddhist religion,
>> >they date back to the with in 500 years after Abraham time. �Making
>> >their teachings over four thousand years old, not as long as the Old
>> >Testament, and Jewish people could of shown Buddha the Word of God.
>> >Many of the teachings are about the same as found in Proverbs, and
>> >originally they did believe only ONE GOD.
>> Actually they don't believe in any god. �
>You seem not to know much about them Buddhist either, some do not have
>any god, but many gods, in one temple that was near the town I lived
>in for many years, had a Temple with 10,000 gods images all just a few
>inches tall.
http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
Do Buddhist believe in god?
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern
sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the
god idea have their origin in fear.
>> But my point is that millions of manhours of research have gone into Scripture,
>> pulling all the parts together in an effort to understand God's message to us.
>> That being said, how can protestant individuals who by and large reject much of
>> scripture tell the RCC it's wrong?
>You believe your priest too much, the Protestant see that the Catholic
>rejected much of the Scriptures
We did??? Where? Jesus taught Peter and the Apostles. Peter, the first Pope,
taught the 2nd pope St. Linus (67-76) who taught the 3rd Pope St. Anacletus
(Cletus) (76-88) who taught the 4th pope St. Clement I (88-97).............who
taught the 265th Pope John Paul II (1978-2005) who taught the 266th Pope
Benedict XVI (2005�).
The Catholic Church is responsible for the bible.
(In his commentary on St John, (Chapter 16) Martin Luther wrote, "We are
obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) that they possess
the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have
known nothing at all about it.")
> and add to the Bible books that even
>the Jews rejected they put into the Word of God, where St. John wrote
>not to ADD to the Word of God. They do reject bowing to images and
>praying to the dead saints and such, as wrong.
NOT a chance. The protestants removed from the bible.
The books of the Apocrypha, which is strictly Old Testament, were rejected as
canon scripture by the Jews because they were written in Greece rather than the
Holy Land.
So the protestants, who reject so much of NT scripture and siding with the Jews,
took the Apocrypha out of their bibles.
>> >> >> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
>> >> >> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
>> >> >> etc.
>> >> >Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
>> >> >there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
>> >> Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. �I am always amused at the way
>> >> some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
>> >> things.
>> No response? �To me, it's clear. �We are born, we live, we die. � Only one man
>> went to the other side and came back to talk about it. �That's Christ. �To us,
>> it has no value in details. �Those details are of God only.
>NO RESPONSE? You got to be blind or talking to someone else, I always
>have an response, just because you do not accept them or disagree,
>doesn't mean anything you get a response, if I see your post.
When I use "no response", that means you offered no counter response at the end
of my comment, of which I thought you would say something. You can see from
above that the discussion moved from 4> to 2>, or when you read this, it should
be from 5> to 3>.
>We are born to die. Simple as that. Jesus did just that, then you seem to
>forget that Jesus Moses and Abraham who had died and went to heaven,
>did show up on a mountain and the Apostles seen them so they did come
>back and bible does talk about it.
Well, I believe it was Elijah rather than Abraham but congrats on being the
first protestant ever to acknowledge salvation of non-Christians, even though
they didn't say anything, plus not having to wait for THE "resurrection".
> I not sure what you think you mean
>by the "To us it has no value in details. Those details are of God
>only?" All that the Holy Word of God the Bible has to say should mean
>and have value to them that say they are believers in Christ Jesus.
What I mean, rk, is that we die, as you said above. Now whether we are dealing
with "lakes of fire, first death, 2nd death, purgatory, heaven, hell" is not for
man to talk of with authority. It's simple - we die and then are judged for the
way we lived our human lives - the details of what comes next are beyond our
control and authority. Our primary concern for the after is the way we lived
the before.
>Raymond
duke
wrote:
>> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
>> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
>> doctrine.
>The authority is the scripture, which the RCC perverts, denies or
>contradicts on some issues. I gave you one example.
Your example does not hold water. The written word is only a partial record of
everything Jesus said and did. John 21:25. Now, the gospels were firstly not a
record of what Jesus said and did as they are a record of what other people said
that Jesus said and did. This is evident in that the gospels were not
"published" until 30-60 years after Christ, only John being the Apostle that
personally met Jesus. And the NT scripture was not canonized until the 4th
century.
This means that everything we read today originated as Holy Tradition, or the
verbal word rather than the written word, and existed for 300 years before
canonization.
>Another example would be mandating preistly celebacy when even
>Paul--whom they appeal to--said bishops MUST be the husband of one wife;
>and Paul himself never REQUIRED any minister or bishop to be unmarried.
Neither Jesus, Paul or John were married. And be careful with the words "must"
and "required". Paul was saying "NO divorced, no concubines, no one from
prison".
>> >> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
>> >> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
>> >> etc.
>> >Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
>> >there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
>> Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. I am always amused at the way
>> some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
>> things.
>Bible's reasonably clear on it
Words, not meaning. For instance, for the sinner, the "first death or
judgment" is also the last.
The bible also says that those that died in God's friendship were raised to
**NEW LIFE** at the moment Jesus died. No waiting for resurrection day for them
according to your way of thinking.
>the Day of the
>> >> Lord had already passed. However, the resurrection of the Lord had already
>> >> taken place.
>> >I honestly don't know how you're getting that. that's not a view taught
>> >by the RCC that I've ever heard. Can you give me a reference?
>> Which part?
>The part about you getting your perfected physical body as soon as you
>get to heaven. The RCC i'm sure does not teach this.
How does anybody know FOR SURE? What difference does it make? God has a plan
whether we know what it is or not. But I believe we will be glorified as Jesus
is glorified. He was raised to new life showing us that we would to. And he
showed us with God in heaven after.
I'd much rather go that way rather than think of a great "war on horseback" some
few to billions of years in the future.
>> >But not the lake of fire, which gets filled at the last judgment
>> I submit that the first judgment (particular Heb 9:27) is the last judgment for
>> those relegated to hell at death.
>Well, the RCC position is that there is a speicific judgment at death,
>then go to a bad place for the sinner, then the general judgment comes
>at the end of time, and you go to a worse place:
>the Catholic Encyclopedia says "Few truths are more often or more
>clearly proclaimed in Scripture than that of the general judgment".
>When the individual dies, general judgment holds that the person's final
>dispensation will await the general judgment of the dead at the end of
>the world, rather than be judged immediately.
Sounds more like the friends of God hang around purgatory and the damned go
direct to hell. What does it matter for the damned? Or maybe it means that we
all hang around the grave until resurrection day, all get the general judgment
with the damned going straight to satanville, and the friends of God exposed for
their sinfulness, purified, and on to heaven.
It still says heaven, hell, and purgatory. For those in the grave know nothing.
> And further, that the last judgment (general
>> Rev 21:27) is only for the saved where they stand face to face with their
>> sinfulness in purgatory.
>Not what the catholic encyclopedia says
My disagreement is with your analysis. I gave you an equally accurate rendition
above. It just doesn't matter to us as we make our path on this earth and it is
only for God to handle the rest.
>> >What we CAN seem to say with reasonable certainty is that the RCC view
>> >of purgatory does not hold up to scripture, in that it is a prolonged
>> >process that can take centuries, with prayers and alms for the dead all
>> >that time helping those there get out. The Bible really does not affirm
>> >those ideas
>> Of course it does. The bible clearly says about a purging:
>> Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
>> Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
>> Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
>> Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
>>
>> 1Cor 3:13
>> 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.
>> It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's
>> work.
>See how weak the argument is? Those verses don't make the point at all,
>and are the best you can do to try and force the point to be made.
>That's what happens when you try and teach purgatory.
See how STRONG that is. These verses says that we must be purified before we
can stand before God. The damned are gone to hell. And we are cleaned.
>> Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
>jn 15 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Right, Revelation 21:27.
You need to also remember 1 JOhn 1:8-10 which says we are sinners - period.
>> 1 John 1:8-10 makes it clear that we die as sinners. And for sure we have the
>> human nature to sin well tattooed on our soul.
>Reread vs 9 and the part about "cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness"
The cleansing is in the purifying process.
You see, I come in the front door, and you come in the back door, but we both
get in.
>Not talking about purgatory since the person is obviously still alive to
>confess his sins, and so the cleansing comes while the guy IS still
>alive.
>We could go on and on, but it's still true that the scriptural arguments
>for purgatory are so weak that they really have no good merit.
And as I keep saying, heaven and hell and purification. You go in the back and
I go in thru the front. It still says nothing unclean will see God.
>> >Apparently they can: 2 macc 12(?), where the guys being prayed for are
>> >idolators, which is mortal sin
>> >So either someone in the mortal sin of idolatry CAN go to purgatory, or
>> >that passage is not a good proof text to use since it refutes catholic
>> >teaching on the subject
>> 2Mac 12:40 has prayers asking that the dead soldiers be released from their
>> sins. That's the point.
>And I could, if I wanted to (and if I considered 2 Macc. inspired
>scripture), make the point that the inspiration behind the thought
>wasn't purgatory, but that the messiah come and take the departed
>covenant people--the jews--from abraham's bosm, where they were
>separtated fom God, to heaven.
Abraham's bosom, yeah, right. Using your flawed line of thinking, how does
Abraham hold all those Jews? But no purgatory - right???
I'll stick with heaven, hell, and purification.
>I don't consider intertestamental books to be fully inspired,* so i
>don't need to reconcile evangelical theology with them...tho I actually
>could if i DID need to.
It doesn't matter what you and I think. All that matters is what God does,
regardless of our way of pretend-viewing.
>* Here's just one reason the apocrypha is not fully inspired: In the
>apocrypha, the ark of the covenant was said to be hidden by jeremiah on
>mt Nebo until the end of the age, when it would be found again
Now there's a biggie. So VG "doesn't consider" the Apocapha to be inspired
because the Jews had a problem with them because they were written in Greece
rather than the Holy Land.
>Well, just compare that thought to the REAL scripture of jeremiah 3:16,
>and you'll see the apocrypha has errors, and thus is not infallible.
All scripture has literal errors - OT, NT, Gospels, Letters. Not every word in
the bible is literally true, except for God's word regarding our souls and his
plans for the salvation thereof.
>> Interesting. I thought Protestants thought we already were in the kingdom of
>> God.
>Preterists do. I'm not one.
I don't now what they are.
>>But not that it's heaven. We Catholics never talk about such a thing.
>> Nobody knows.
>> I would think that Jesus tasting death for every man would put us in the kingdom
>> of God. Jesus is glorified, and raised to the Father, and we are buried with
>> him to sin in baptism in hopes of following him to the Father.
>Not in hope--but of absolute assurance!
And Heb 10:26-27 says that if we keep on sinning after learning of Christ (and
I'll assume baptism) then the only thing left for us are the fires of hell.
Of course, we will get that removed in purgatory if we are judged saved. Right??
>These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son
>of God; that ye MAY KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may
>believe on the name of the Son of God.
Does "believe on" mandate absolute following in his steps?
>> >Uh. no--it is attributing the power of God to satan. Even the didache
>> >takes a similar view, saying judging a propghet of God is the
>> >unforgivable sin, and the didache is right from the time the apostles
>> >were still living
>> Those in serious sin worship satan. See A&E. They told God "no", that they'll
>> decide right from wrong and not he. If we die in a state of telling God "no",
>> we are satan, we are blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
>That's not what the Sin is. sorry. But I acknowledge the pope thought
>that.
Sin = telling God no. Sin = making ourselves his equal.
>> >> >So you can make the argument the RCC way, but as is so often the case
>> >> >with purgatory arguments, it does not seem to be that strong, nor does
>> >> >it exclude other arguments
>> >> Heaven, hell, and purification.
>
>> >"purification" might indeed be argued. PURGATORY (as defined) is the
>> >problem
>> Now, now. We're dealing with the mind of a goat herder 2000 years ago. Purging
>> and purifying are the same thing. That a "place" exists, or not, is not the
>> issue.
>OK. And you cannot make a very good argument that it does. You can try,
>but the argument is not very strong, and even weaker goes the argument
>if you define the catholic verion of purgatory
I never will try to make a case for a "place", but scripture quite clearly says
purification so you're welcome to make your own decision on that is.
>> >> Why would God restrict his love for his newborn creation that dies unbaptized?
>> >> He is unable to sin. But he still possesses the stain of original sin.
>> >Different issue. I'm talking about adults.
>> And I'm talking about both.
>You can't lump them together.
God doesn't treat mankind differently. An infant is unable to make a reasoned
decision, but an adult is.
>For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin
>revived, and I died.
>Even paul admits it was only after he was old enough to know right from
>wrong did he enter a state of condemed sinner
Exactly. But scripture still says we are born with a sin nature like we are
with 10 fingers and 10 toes. And according to scripture, that is removed in
baptism.
>> Certainly an adult who submits to baptism has
>> attained a desire via knowledge. Catholics do the same in Confirmation where
>> youth previous receiving John's baptism at birth now make their own baptismal
>> promises as one mature enough to know what he's doing.
Good no comment.
>> > Paul clearly indicates they
>> >must hear/receive Christ to be saved, the RCC says they don't have to,
>> >but can cooperate with the inner grace of God and die in a state of
>> >grace.
>>
>> Why "must",
>cuz paul says
But the big guy, Jesus, said he gives us a new command - that we love one
another as he loves us. John 13:34. And a muslim is God's creation also. So
infants are baptized into God's grace per John 3:5-7. If they die without
baptism, they await the resurrection like the rest of us.
>>but instead "do"? As far as dying in the state of grace, 1 John
>> 1:8-10 pretty much eliminates that.
>Your argument is with the RCC then; that's their doctrine, not mine
No, it's not.
>> >FOOEY, as my jewish friend rob would say
>> I agree, FOOEY as far as dying in the state of grace. Only God knows.
Another great no response.
>> >> Yes, of course, and why send the infants to burn in hell because they died sans
>> >> baptism?
>> >Based on deut 1:39, i would say they go to heaven.
>
>> Deut is for Jews. Christ is for Christians, where the covenant is written on
>> the heart and not on stone tablets.
>ok...kinda leaves the sincere moslem out of it, huh?
Only God knows.
>> >> No, the bible doesn't. I often enjoy pointing out how many sin-filled
>> >> Christians will gnash their teeth in unbelief when they go to hell while
>> >> non-Christians who live in the spirit of Christ go to heaven.
>>
>> >impossible. period. NO non-christian is going to heaven. Period. End of
>> >story. Not one jew. Not one moslem. Not one atheist. Not one hindu. No
>> >one nothing. ONLY Christians in covenant with God thru faith in Christ
>> >will be there.
>>
>> Sorry. Jesus said "I give you a new command, that you love one another as I
>> have loved you." Jews, atheists, hindus, muslims "can" live in the spirit of
>> Christ as well as any baptized person.
>no. That's salvation through the works of righteous living. Does not
>work.
James 2:26 (New International Version)
26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
Matthew 25:31-46 (New International Version)
The Sheep and the Goats
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory,33He will put the sheep on his right
and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by
my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the
creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I
was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited
me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after
me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and
feed you
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the
least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed,
into the eternal fire
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the
least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal
life."
>> After all, they are God's children
>> also.
>They are children of adam. And they can go to heaven or hell based on
>their receipt or non-receipt of the gospel
Actually, I'll leave this one in the hands of God.
>> >See the parable in matt 22 about the wedding garment handed out at the
>> >gate (Christ), where a guy who did not come thru that gate and get the
>> >garment was thrown out even though he was invited in with the rest!
>> Nice parable about God's invitation, but not every non-Christian worships satan.
>Sure they do. Perhaps not knowingly, but a sincere moslem is still
>following a religion that has a demonic spirit behind it.
Muslims, Jews, and Christians all call Abraham Father of their religion.
We see in scripture that the children of Adam, the Jews, were raised to **NEW
LIFE** when Christ died on the cross. Why not Muslims and atheists IF God so
decides?
>The HOLY Spirit is not the spirit that invented Islam, Hinduism,
>Atheism, rabinnic judaism, Shintoism, Buddhism, and so on. SATAN is the
>guiding influence behind ALL other religions:
You are in serious need of reading Mat 27:51+ and rethinking your position.
>But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice
>to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have
>fellowship with devils.
Conversion. Peter is the Apostles to the Gentiles. As is Paul.
>> >> >By the way, the catholic church I grew up in the 50-60s taught everyone
>> >> >but catholics were certainly going to hell.Period. At least, the
>> >> >catholic churches i knew did.
>>
>> >> I suggest that word is (c)atholic and not (C)atholic.
>> >huh?? You mean you're not a ROMAN catholic? You're some sort of
>> >orthodox?
>> (c)atholic means "ONE church", with the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments.
>So are you a rmoman catholic, in submission to the teaching magisterium
>and pope, or not???
I'm a Roman Catholic who follows Jesus's commission to the Apostles in Mat
28:16-20.
RWKnapp
That statement only shows you are not educated. All one has to do is
go to a Museum a depository for collecting and displaying objects
having scientific or historical or artistic value of early history and
find lots of things written and picture writing and so on. More then
just two thousand years ago. Then six million null.
> > Then the Christian as the Jew have no problem with billions of years, if
> > you want to go that route, In the Beginning GOD! The beginning of the
> > worlds and all that is, has no date, and six million years, has
> > already been rejected. Since such can not be proven and the last time
> > I read a book on Evolution they are now into many billions of years,
> > showing they make it up and have nothing to prove what they said, so
> > why not start with this word, what ever day or date one wants, the
> > Beginning when God made it, has no date, the date only points to this
> > earth and moon and such that we can see. Well no need to go on with
> > that, six million or six thousands at least with the thousand there is
> > documentation.
>
> Yet you still tell the adam and Eve story. Which way do you want things to
> be then ?
Why not it is recorded in records that go back six thousand years.
Evolution does not go back in records thousands of years, they just in
the last few hundred years started telling lies and making up stories
that have no historical evidents, and to day they try to add a few
billion years, which had no foundation either. A lie repeated is
still only a lie, and when dealing with history and facts, it is a
joke and was laughed at for years, and to the educated person still
only a insult to intelligences.
>
> >> Do you folks concede that early humans almost surely had no method of verbal
> >> communication, other than one or two recognizable grunts and that they lived
> >> like this for millions of years virtually unchanged?
>
> > I can not speak for the other folks only myself as you only speak for
> > yourself. I will not agree, since they found caves with pictures and
> > tools that was left in them show they had a form of verbal or graphic
> > ways of communication.
>
> I was going much further back than that, and being able to paint does not
> prove the ability to converse since no characters are found in early cave
> paintings.
Only in your mind, then they were not only painting like a wall they
were telling stories of what happen in painting pictures that can
still be seen today and pictures taken in such caves, dating back
thousand of years, never even a small million years and surly not a
billion or such silly mind games. Look up the term "characters" and it
is also seen as this "Engrave or inscribe characters on" a picture is
a form of character and it does tell a story as the written letters or
characters you seem to want. Then Chinese is only picture characters
that when if you learn it, It shows what is meant. Since we are not
in a character accepted newsgroup it is difficult to show you that,
then check with a Chinese friend or translator from chines to English
and you would know that. Now in English the Chinese word for MAN is
only a picture of a stick man. check it out and remember readers
their language goes back over five thousand years. I know as I have
lieved in China for over 27 years now. The sound of the word "man" in
Mandarin Chinese is "Ren" and if one dobbles that it means "Ren Ren"
or people..
> > Since we do not have a tape recorder or
>
> > Computer DVD then one thing for sure the atheist has no prove they did
> > not verbal communicate.
>
> Yes it's that nasty old common sense thing rearing it's ugly head again
> Raymond !
Which fits all you said as your story is not old or new common sense,
like Chinese all one that knows that language can today pronounce it
and say it, and so no need for a recording or tape and the only ugly
head here seem to be yourself. Than thank you for using my name as
you seem to be able to say or write it also with out hearing me say it
or a tape of my word.
> > Like they say today "I would ratter see a
> > sermon then hear one" "A picture is worth a thousand words." I
> > worked with some natives that sound like all they do is grunt only
> > they also understand what the sound of that grunt means. My cat makes
> > sounds also, and after a while I learn to understand that sound means
> > he is hungry or clean my litter box now. If you do such to displease
> > the cat he sure lets one know and we understand by his grunts what is
> > being verbalized.
>
> Smile - one needs to be able to do more than grunt to make up a religion
> Raymond. The first thing one has to be able to say and claim is that there
> are 'Evil spirits out there in the forest'
Then what you see as a grunt to another is a language, you really do
not think a Japanese or a Chinese person can understand all the grunts
they hear and you call English is anything more then noise? I
remember a person saying the Japanese sound like they are singing a
song not talking but singing. Then since in Chinese we have four to
nine tones and it is a language to the unlearned just a song, does not
make it so.
They had a movie about a man in I believe Africa about the a bottle
falling from an airplane and the person spoke to his tribe about it,
and all it sounded like was clicking and grunts, that movie was shown
all over the world and now on cable TV. So the more you try to excuse
your errors you only make people wonder if you even when to a high
school or have any knowledge of languages that you seem to want people
of little education believe you know what your saying.
I've been in the Jungles, where only one person could read and write,
the whole village. They could not, to them pictures and drawings
where their way of sending a note to one another on paper, wood, or
stone. Then the way your acting here could be seen as an evil
spirit has control over you mind be it in a city, or forest, on the
sea or land. Most even atheist know there is good and evil in the
world. Many times people want someone else to blame and will say a
spirit made me do it, or a evil spirit did it. Some may say a good
spirit that person has, his personally is wonderful and he or she is
good spirited.
>
> Today we can ignore that fact that the sounds these poor early huamns heard
> as they slept together full of fear was no doubt two tree branches rubbing
> together in the breeze making a groaning sound
So you can not even call them "early HUMANS", then that is not
strange for one of your kind. So know you think people then are
different then today, and only those folks had or were as you put it
"full of fear" it seems you are very young, as in the world wars,
those people lived under fear and full of it, not knowing if a bomb
would end their life in a second. I been in the Military and know
what fear is when planes were heading for the base and from the air
they bomb us out of being. All we had was riffles and such, big deal,
people that did not believe in God were praying and writing home,
thinking we all would be dead soon.
You think those folks were full of more fear then the modern man today
and you use that excuse in your story, please get a life! It seem you
never were a boyscout as rubbing two tree branches together can bring
a fire that is warm and also shows intelligences. Then even two rocks
of a certain kind can be hit together and make a fire, then and
today. Only it takes smarts to know what stone to use.
I wonder if they were smarter then you think you are today. I know
how to do it, also where in a jungle to find good drinking water that
is always near a plant and how deep to dig to find it at its roots.
How to make a cup and such to eat and drink out of, without a store to
buy them in. Just like them smart stone age folks did and people in
remote areas do, even in 2010 AD. :-)
> >> Cheers
>
> > Yes Cheers have another cup of tea or coffee.
>
> I used to enjoy one Guinness a day with my dinner but Doc Choi says it is
> not a good idea, so that has gone forever.
Sorry to hear that, then some times it is what we eat or do not eat,
that will give us another day on this earth. I cut out most all sugar
and use the fake kind to sweeten a cup of coffee or tea.
Cheers,
Raymond
Bob Young
On 1/3/10 3:05 AM, in article
599c2320-62e9-486d...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
<rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
Proof please
> Evolution does not go back in records thousands of years, they just in
> the last few hundred years started telling lies and making up stories
> that have no historical evidents, and to day they try to add a few
> billion years, which had no foundation either.
Try reading about evolution, you may then decide to scrap all of your
primitive ideas
A lie repeated is
> still only a lie, and when dealing with history and facts, it is a
> joke and was laughed at for years, and to the educated person still
> only a insult to intelligences.
>
>>
>>>> Do you folks concede that early humans almost surely had no method of
>>>> verbal
>>>> communication, other than one or two recognizable grunts and that they
>>>> lived
>>>> like this for millions of years virtually unchanged?
>>
>>> I can not speak for the other folks only myself as you only speak for
>>> yourself. �I will not agree, since they found caves with pictures and
>>> tools that was left in them show they had a form of verbal or graphic
>>> ways of communication.
>>
>> I was going much further back than that, and being able to paint does not
>> prove the ability to converse since no characters are found in early cave
>> paintings.
>
> Only in your mind, then they were not only painting like a wall they
> were telling stories of what happen in painting pictures that can
> still be seen today and pictures taken in such caves, dating back
> thousand of years, never even a small million years and surly not a
> billion or such silly mind games. Look up the term "characters" and it
> is also seen as this "Engrave or inscribe characters on" a picture is
> a form of character and it does tell a story as the written letters or
> characters you seem to want.
Groan, you need to go further back in time. Why do Christians have to cheat,
is your belief so fragile you need to do behave in this manner ?
Then Chinese is only picture characters
> that when if you learn it, It shows what is meant. Since we are not
> in a character accepted newsgroup it is difficult to show you that,
> then check with a Chinese friend or translator from chines to English
> and you would know that.
No need to, I have a Chinese wife. Also you again ignore the fact that
there was a time when even the Chinese had no characters at all - simply
grunts like the rest of our ancestors
Now in English the Chinese word for MAN is . . . .
Yan [if you want it in Cantonese]
> only a picture of a stick man. check it out and remember readers
> their language goes back over five thousand years.
Yes Yes Yes . . . . but I am going back five million years
I know as I have
> lieved in China for over 27 years now. The sound of the word "man" in
> Mandarin Chinese is "Ren" and if one dobbles that it means "Ren Ren"
> or people..
Yan Yan means people in Cantonese - SO WHAT ?
>
>>> �Since we do not have a tape recorder or
>>
>>> Computer DVD then one thing for sure the atheist has no prove they did
>>> not verbal communicate.
>>
>> Yes it's that nasty old common sense thing rearing it's ugly head again
>> Raymond !
>
> Which fits all you said as your story is not old or new common sense,
> like Chinese all one that knows that language can today pronounce it
> and say it, and so no need for a recording or tape and the only ugly
> head here seem to be yourself. Than thank you for using my name as
> you seem to be able to say or write it also with out hearing me say it
> or a tape of my word.
Chee sin
>
>>> � Like they say today "I would ratter see a
>>> sermon then hear one" �"A picture is worth a thousand words." � I
>>> worked with some natives that sound like all they do is grunt only
>>> they also understand what the sound of that grunt means. �My cat makes
>>> sounds also, and after a while I learn to understand that sound means
>>> he is hungry or clean my litter box now. �If you do such to displease
>>> the cat he sure lets one know and we understand by his grunts what is
>>> being verbalized.
>>
>> Smile - one needs to be able to do more than grunt to make up a religion
>> Raymond. �The first thing one has to be able to say and claim is that there
>> are 'Evil spirits out there in the forest'
>
> Then what you see as a grunt to another is a language, you really do
> not think a Japanese or a Chinese person can understand all the grunts
> they hear and you call English is anything more then noise? I
> remember a person saying the Japanese sound like they are singing a
> song not talking but singing. Then since in Chinese we have four to
> nine tones and it is a language to the unlearned just a song, does not
> make it so.
G r o a n Go back further and stop playing around frantically trying to
justify an old myth from about two thousand years back - go back two million
years
>
> They had a movie about a man in I believe Africa about the a bottle
> falling from an airplane and the person spoke to his tribe about it,
> and all it sounded like was clicking and grunts, that movie was shown
> all over the world and now on cable TV. So the more you try to excuse
> your errors you only make people wonder if you even when to a high
> school or have any knowledge of languages that you seem to want people
> of little education believe you know what your saying.
>
> I've been in the Jungles, where only one person could read and write,
> the whole village. They could not, to them pictures and drawings
> where their way of sending a note to one another on paper, wood, or
> stone.
Indeed and these same villagers that I met in Africa [Malawi] would hang
dried up small animals at head height along the tracks used for moving
around. When I asked what they were there for the answer I got was "The
villagers put them there to frighten away the Evil Spirits"
So you are not very far removed from them it would appear - so don't talk to
me about intelligence
I do believe you have 'evil spirits' in your *myth* - right ?
Then the way your acting here could be seen as an evil
> spirit has control over you mind be it in a city, or forest, on the
> sea or land. Most even atheist know there is good and evil in the
> world.
Yes we know that, but we don not harness these aspects of morality and 'use'
them to perpetrate a lie
Many times people want someone else to blame and will say a
> spirit made me do it, or a evil spirit did it. Some may say a good
> spirit that person has, his personally is wonderful and he or she is
> good spirited.
Right - I will now leave a space below so that you can define your spirit
>
>>
>> Today we can ignore that fact that the sounds these poor early huamns heard
>> as they slept together full of fear was no doubt two tree branches rubbing
>> together in the breeze making a groaning sound
>
> So you can not even call them "early HUMANS", then that is not
> strange for one of your kind.
Chee sin
So know you think people then are
> different then today, and only those folks had or were as you put it
> "full of fear" it seems you are very young, as in the world wars,
> those people lived under fear and full of it, not knowing if a bomb
> would end their life in a second. I been in the Military and know
> what fear is when planes were heading for the base and from the air
> they bomb us out of being. All we had was riffles and such, big deal,
> people that did not believe in God were praying and writing home,
> thinking we all would be dead soon.
Aye and the ones who prayed to their god and the ones who did not had the
same chance of dying.
See - more lying for your god. Purveyors of falsehoods have no rights to
question the intelligence of those who do not lie
>
> You think those folks were full of more fear then the modern man today
> and you use that excuse in your story, please get a life!
Well let us try your intelligence, hard as this might be to do. Imagine
yourself lying in bed tonight and you hear noises outside suggesting that
someone is trying to break in. Out comes your cell phone and you call 911.
If the police catch someone with your prosperity they will take him to court
and you can get it back.
Now try really hard to use your imagination. I know how difficult this
might be for you since you have been brainwashed but nevertheless give it a
try. Now imagine yourself out in the desert three thousand years ago and
you hear noises outside. There is nothing stopping you from being tossed
out of your home by a large group who then take it over for themselves and
there is NOTHING at all you can do about it.
Now it might be hard for you to accept but I have just demonstrated for you
the difference between 'fear' today and 'fear' of the days when fools had to
make up a book of rules with Ten Commandments in it. No police, no laws only
the fear of an imaginary god for protection
Juvenile isn't it ?
It seem you
> never were a boyscout as rubbing two tree branches together can bring
> a fire that is warm and also shows intelligences.
Nothing to do with the topic in hand
Then even two rocks
> of a certain kind can be hit together and make a fire, then and
> today. Only it takes smarts to know what stone to use.
>
> I wonder if they were smarter then you think you are today.
GROAN, if they were they would have done heart transplants and made cell
phones back then . . . . GROAN
I know
> how to do it, also where in a jungle to find good drinking water that
> is always near a plant and how deep to dig to find it at its roots.
> How to make a cup and such to eat and drink out of, without a store to
> buy them in. Just like them smart stone age folks did and people in
> remote areas do, even in 2010 AD. :-)
>
>>>> Cheers
>>
>>> Yes Cheers have another cup of tea or coffee.
>>
>> I used to enjoy one Guinness a day with my dinner but Doc Choi says it is
>> not a good idea, so that has gone forever.
>
> Sorry to hear that, then some times it is what we eat or do not eat,
> that will give us another day on this earth. I cut out most all sugar
> and use the fake kind to sweeten a cup of coffee or tea.
Good advice
I have given you a hard time today Raymond. Not my choice - you always seem
to ask for it.
Praise be to the imaginary Lord
Cheers
Hey HK has had an awful winter, cloudy, rainy almost every day. October
November was when we used to tell relatives to visit to enjoy the lovely
weather, not any more.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Raymond
>
Florence B. Nitengail
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:39:53 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:4c5pj5t8ut4ub294s...@4ax.com... Nothing worth
>>repeating!
>
>>Your nonsensical bullcrap about a mythical "Purgatory" snipped.
>
> Tsk, tsk, fn. It's not a matter of a place. It's a matter of a
> purification.
Tsk, tsk, and tsk.... there's no mention of a purgatory in the bible, or
rosary beads or confession booths.....
> But when talking to a goat herder that lived a few thousand years ago,
> words had
> to be used for his benefit, not ours.
>
>>Purgatory only exists in the mind of some past Pope who dreamed it up.
>>Read
>>your bible.
>
> You admitted you snipped my words from the bible re purification.
I snipped totally unrelated nonsense that had nothing to do with a
purgatory.
>
>>According to Ec the
>>dead know nothing. Read your bible. They're not alive and conscious and
>>sitting around some place called "purgatory." Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the
>>living know that they will die, but the but the dead know nothing
>>The living at least know they will die, but the dead know nothing. ....
>>etc.
>>Bible makes it clear dead are conscious of nothing at all. Ec 9:5 No
>>purgatory dreamed up by some Pope.
>
> I'm a Christian. I go by the NT and the new covenant given us by Christ.
Really? So your church removed the OT from the RC bible? You only print and
use the NT? That means the story of Genesis was given up. The story of the
flood etc. Strange that my Aunt's priest never mentioned they now have an
all new Bible sans the OT.
Florence B. Nitengail
> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote
>> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>>> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote ..
>>>> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>>> Purgatory is scriptural; limbo is not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no purgatory in the Bible. This is a construct of the RCC
>>>>>
>>>>> The word Purgatory isn't in the Bible.
>>>>> The word isn't in the Bible but the inference to this place,
>>>>> Purgatory, is.
>>>>
>>>> Only in the mind of your past Pope who dreamed it up. According to Ec
>>>> the dead know nothing. Read your bible. They're not alive and conscious
>>>> and sitting around some place called "purgatory." Ecclesiastes 9:5 For
>>>> the living know that they will die, but the but the dead know nothing
>>>> The living at least know they will die, but the dead know nothing. ....
>>>> etc.
>>>> Bible makes it clear dead are concious of nothing at all.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you should read the New Testament where Peter
>>> asked Jesus if he could set up tents for a couple
>>> of "dead guys" who met Him on a mountain.......
>>
>> Perhaps you should read Ec for yourself.
>
> Right after you read about Jesus meeting the dead guys.
According to Ec the
dead know nothing. Read your bible again. They're not alive and conscious
and
sitting around some place called "purgatory." Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the
living know that they will die, but the but the dead know nothing
The living at least know they will die, but the dead know nothing. .... etc.
Bible makes it clear dead are conscious of nothing at all. Ec 9:5 No
purgatory dreamed up by some Pope.
>
>> Purgatory exists only in the mind of some past Pope who dreamed it up.
>> Read your bible.
>> According to Ec the
>> dead know nothing. **Read your bible.** They're not alive and conscious
>> and
>> sitting around some place called "purgatory." Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the
>> living know that they will die, but the but the dead know nothing
>> The living at least know they will die, but the dead know nothing. ....
>> etc.
>> Bible makes it clear dead are conscious of nothing at all. Ec 9:5 No
>> purgatory dreamed up by some Pope.
>
> I provided a shitload of references earlier.
> Would you like them again?
Why bother when they had nothing to do with proving there's a purgatory or
that the dead are all conscious.
Florence B. Nitengail
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:42:31 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:r95pj55pj2i606oih...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 02:15:52 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>>>I already did. Judgment day has not yet come or we would not be here
>>>>debating on the BS the RCC dreamed up.
>>>
>>> Judgment day is individual at the time of physical death. Read your
>>> bible.
>>
>>I already did, unlike you. Judgment day has not yet come or we would not
>>be
>>here debating on the self-serving BS the RCC dreamed up.
>
> Judgement day comes to each of us at the moment of death of the body
> shell.
Making the bible wrong about all those being called from their memorial
tombs. Jesus putting the sheep on one hand and the goats on the other. The
biblical contradictions are legendary aren't they?
The
> Jews that died in the friendship of God were raised to new life at the
> moment
> Jesus died on the cross. Read your bible.
I already did. You need to read a real bible instead of the one given you
lacking even the OT.
RWKnapp
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:02:12 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 27, 5:44 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:51:06 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >> >> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? It was not hell, for
> >> >> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
> >> >> man to know.
> >> >> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
> >> >> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
> >> >The Catholic church uses the term purgatory, the story of laz was in
> >> >Paradise before the resurrection, as Hell was also in that one place
> >> >understood as the place of the dead and they could see each other.
> >> Purgatory = supposed place of purging. The new Christians had to be made to understand.
> >Why there is no such place to start with and not a word of it is from
> >the Bible so the Christian need to understand it is only a make
> >believed place
>
> "Who" said there was no such place to start with? It's scriptural as no man is
> pure enough to stand before God without attaining a degree of purification. Heb
> 12:14.
Only Christ Jesus is pure enough and by Him we stand in His
purification, that is one reason Jesus died and rose from the dead to
pay for our sins and only by His blood given freely on the cross can
we have such purification. Nothing we do will ever make or give
anyone a degree of purification.
>
> > Ever hear of a MASS that does not take money in for praying
> >for the souls that missed Heaven and really went to hell
>
> As a Roman Catholic attending daily Mass, I never hear of such a thing. No
> wonder you're a protest_er, you're totally ignorant of the RCC..
Oh please half of my relatives are Roman Catholic, I attended Catholic
summer camp six weeks long, and been in many a MASS and heard some
good messages by a few Priest. Also I have spoke to nuns and priest
that came to hear me in the past. I know what I am talking about and
your the ignorant one. Go to Jersey City NJ and you can attend daily
mass, some as many as six in one morning, such as in San Antonio,
Texas as well as Mexico and the Philippines. I been to them, I even
see one of the past Pope's in person, as well as other leaders of the
Roman Catholic Church. You need to study some, as it does not matter
what you "never heard of" it happens daily in even in Spain and other
nations that the Roman Catholic Church has lots of members.
>
> >, so they now
> >can get a pass to bypass the bible and get to heaven some other way.
> >Not going to happen.
> >Matt 22:11-14
>
> Clearly not those things that feed your wild imagination.
Then I do not have any wild imagination, every thing I know, I learned
by study and reading as well as talking to church leaders.
>
> >11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there
> >who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 So he said to him, 'Friend,
> >how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was
> >speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and
> >foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be
> >weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
> >14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
> >NKJV
>
> Yep, God calls all men, but few are without sin to the point that they can go to
> purgatory.
Show me the verse that says there is such a place as Purgatory. It
is not found in the Bible and the only chance people have of salvation
is when they are alive, as after death comes the Judgement. 2 Cor
6:1-2
6 We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to
receive the grace of God in vain. 2 For He says:
"In an acceptable time I have heard you,
And in the day of salvation I have helped you."
Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.
NKJV
> >> >The gulf was wide and so one could not pass from one to the other, no
> >> >limbo no second chance to get to heaven.
> >> Limbo is another issue to purgatory. And it's all very simple. Live in the
> >> spirit of Christ and the door is open. Play God and you'll find A&E as next
> >> door neighbors.
> >Yes the Catholic church has many false doctrines such as this one on
> >Limbo.
>
> How do you know how God handles the infants and youth that die without the
> benefit of Baptism. I await you silly answer here.
How do I know? I know God and have studied and taught His Word for
over 50 years now. Infants have no sin, there is no such thing as we
are under the sin of Adam and Eve. A child is born without sin, as
such has to learned and only them that REPENT as Peter who you call
your first Pope himself said. A child or infant can not repent and no
one can repent for them, Baptism is for believers also as Peter
pointed out in. The promise is for their children they also when they
understand what sin is need to Repent. I was baptized as a infant and
if I did not find the paper that said I was, I would never have know
it, as I was a sinner baptism or no baptism. Your answer is silly
mind is from the Holy Bible that even the here by the guy you say,
your church was built on, be nice to obey him, then false teachers
have fogged your mind and without understanding one misses the mark
and is lost.
Baptism is not a benefit it is a time to accept and confess Jesus as
Lord and Saviour, no one else can do it for you, a baby can not do
such until they are older and understand.
Acts 3:18-20
18 But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His
prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19
Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,
so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
NKJV
Acts 8:20-23
20 But Peter said to him, "Your money perish with you, because you
thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! 21 You
have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not
right in the sight of God. 22 Repent therefore of this your
wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be
forgiven you. NKJV
Rev 3:19-22
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and
repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My
voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and
he with Me. 21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My
throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
22 "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the
churches."'" NKJV
You see reader it is not what I think is true on these matters it is
what says the LORD in the Holy Bible. The last verses I quoted here
was not from Peter but from JESUS and if one loves the LORD they obey
HIM, no matter what a church says, it is not the church that rules or
has power it is only Jesus that saves and only He and the Scriptures
that is our rule book and knowledge about heave, Hell and all other
places that God has chosen to love. If one refuses to repent when the
Word says rebuke and chasten they are lost. It says to be zealous and
repent, no infant is zealous or can repent, as they are too young to
sin or understand what they are doing is right or wrong.
>
> > You really make no sense at all. It means this: "(theology) in
> >Roman Catholicism, the place of unbaptized but innocent or righteous
> >souls (such as infants and virtuous individuals)"
> It means this: Christians..........
It means that doctrine is not from God or the Bible but only from the
man made built on Peter Roman Catholic church that does these things
without foundations in the Holy Word of God the Holy Bible.
>
> >All man made doctrines never appoved by God. Justification and glory
>
> How would you know. You ignore all the teachings of Christ.
I know as I take the time to read all what JESUS CHRIST said, did and
all His Teachings, years in Bible college and as a teacher of the Holy
Bible, full of the Holy Spirit of God and in in love with all my heart
the Lord Jesus and all that He has said. As well as over many years
as a clergyman and full time missionary in different nations. I never
ignore the teachings of Christ, I do ignore the teachings of popes and
false teachers and such that in no way represents God or the Lord
Jesus Christ. You accept the teachings of your church and you are the
that ignore the teachings of Christ. Then "ignore all" is too, too
general a statement as many follow some, and do not understand all.
Nice try, but the Word of God even the words of Peter condemns your
statements and is not the teachings of the Holy Word of God as the RCC
try to trick people into believing them.
>
> >1. The glory which disembodied spirits are enjoying now. The moment
> >that the soul leaves the body, the justified soul is in glory.
> >Romanism holds that some of the best saints go to heaven when they
> >die; but that the great mass of inferior saints must undergo
> >purgation.
>
> It's scriptural.
No it is not! It is only a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church
which sits on seven mountains that Rome and the Vatican sit on. The
bible points out who they are. Rev 17:9-18
9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven
mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the
other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short
space.
11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is
of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have
received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with
the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto
the beast.
14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome
them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are
with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore
sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall
hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat
her flesh, and burn her with fire.
17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree,
and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be
fulfilled.
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth
over the kings of the earth. KJV
>
> > But the dying thief was no eminent saint. The only good
> >deed that we ever read of his doing was when he claimed Christ as
> >Lord, and rebuked his fellow-thief for slandering the Saviour. Yet,
> >hear the words, "To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise."
>
> Those very words are what got him there, but "to day" does not mean in the next
> 24 hours.
It means to the reader TODAY NOW IS THE TIME then if you do not want a
24 hour day, try what God says is One day. Rev 17:9-18
9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven
mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the
other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short
space.
11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is
of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have
received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with
the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto
the beast.
14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome
them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are
with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore
sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall
hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat
her flesh, and burn her with fire.
17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree,
and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be
fulfilled.
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth
over the kings of the earth.
KJV
Ps 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it
is past, and as a watch in the night. KJV
> You're trying to play silly games with the afterlife.
I do not play games silly or otherwise with the life after death to
the body, I do trust the Lord Jesus and His promises.
>
> >LIMBO
> >Limbo. In Roman Catholic theology, the region or state proximate to
> >heaven (limbo is from the Latin word for "edge" or "border") in which
> >reside departed souls who do not enjoy the beatific vision but do not
> >suffer any other privation. Two kinds of limbo are distinguished: the
> >limbus patrum, or limbo of the Old Testament believers, and the limbus
> >infantium, the limbo of unbaptized infants.
>
> And what is your problem with trying to satiate the immature mind of man.
Such doctrines are the teaching of immature minds that ratter follow a
man then God and the Holy Bible. No problem of mine, a false teaching
is just that not worth the time to follow. Limbo is the Catholic not
the Bible teachings, another pagan teaching added to the church by so
called "holy men".
>
> > The origin of the idea can
> >be traced with confidence only as far back as the high Middle Ages:
> >the word is not used either by Scripture or the church fathers.
>
> The things that Jesus said that are not recorded far outnumber the ones that
> are. John 21:25.
Yes only what he did say and do, you do not follow, so who cares how
many there are, if one does not follower them all is a waste of time,
the wages of sin is death.
>
> >You going to do as you did before make believe you never read this as
> >this may prove your faith has been wrong all this time?
>
> Not a chance of that as you can't defend the opposite.
Why should I defend falsehoods? Then you may only have one chance and
when you put the words of popes and priest above the teaching of the
FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIIRT you loose and then comes the
judgement.
>
> >> > After the resurrection we
> >> >see taking the keys of Hell and the grave and now it is in Heaven one
> >> >dies they are judged to hell or heaven.
> >> Wrong. The Mortal sinner go directly at death.
> >> >Luke 16:22-31
> >> >22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to
> >> >Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being
> >> >in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off,
> >> >and Lazarus in his bosom.
> >> There you go, the begger lived is the spirit and the rich man didn't.
>
> GREAT no response.
Yes poor is your no response, the bible says faith comes by hearing
and such come by the Word of God, which is what is in my response as
my word means little, but the verses of scripture is the best response
one can give, when dealing with the Word of God. The foolishness is
only blindness and rejecting is not repenting and with out such no man
can be saved.
>
> >> >The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
> >> >in Scripture.
> >> Don't be so stupid. The Catholic Church is not only the Church that Christ
> >> founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church that most fully follows
> >> scripture and locked in on the bible.
>
> Another absolutely beautiful no response.
Rejecting or denying the bible and things you refuse to check out as
no response shows the readers you are lying as all can see what I did
post and that is a response, unless you are blind and can not see.
Then you did cut out my response to must of the above so the no
response is your way of saying you do not have a answer and you know
your wrong, and are rejecting the Word of God for the mumblings of
some Pope of priest.
Yours truly in Christ Jesus,
Raymond
>
> The Dukester, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob Young
On 1/4/10 12:17 PM, in article
72ee2b0a-c888-4394...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
<rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28 2009, 1:53ļæ½pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:02:12 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 27, 5:44 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:51:06 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? It was not hell,
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the
>>>>>> righteous.
>>>>>> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is
>>>>>> not for
>>>>>> man to know.
>>>>>> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the
>>>>>> case of
>>>>>> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>>>>> The Catholic church uses the term purgatory, the story of laz was in
>>>>> Paradise before the resurrection, as Hell was also in that one place
>>>>> understood as the place of the dead and they could see each other.
>>>> Purgatory = supposed place of purging. The new Christians had to be made to
>>>> understand.
>>> Why there is no such place to start with and not a word of it is from
>>> the Bible so the Christian need to understand it is only a make
>>> believed place
>>
>> "Who" said there was no such place to start with? ļæ½It's scriptural as no man
>> is
>> pure enough to stand before God without attaining a degree of purification.
>> Heb
>> 12:14.
>
> Only Christ Jesus is pure enough and by Him we stand in His
> purification, that is one reason Jesus died and rose from the dead to
> pay for our sins and only by His blood given freely on the cross can
> we have such purification. Nothing we do will ever make or give
> anyone a degree of purification.
I assume you have verifiable proof for all of that?
If not then the very idea of a god with a son on this earth would, to a
logical thinking person, be proven for all to see in magnificent glory; and
I am not talking about some story in a book full of contradictions, written
by early humans - I am talking about the actions of the god that created the
universe, us and everything else in it, a god that would surely to reveal to
all concerned that his son had lived.
Too logical - ? Better be, since logic, intelligence, common sense, science
and human creativity is all we have
THAT my friend, is . . . . LOGIC
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Man creates his gods in his own image,
then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N ļæ½ it is all in the mind,
an escape from lifeļæ½s realities and hardships,
sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
Oh how I wish there 'were' a loving god.
A god that would take care of manļæ½s ills and fulfill his desires and dreams.
But I have the common sense and intelligence to know that this is simply the
way man desires things to be.
>
>>
>>> Ever hear of a MASS that does not take money in for praying
>>> for the souls that missed Heaven and really went to hell
>>
>> As a Roman Catholic attending daily Mass, I never hear of such a thing. ļæ½No
>> wonder you're a protest_er, you're totally ignorant of the RCC..
>
> Oh please half of my relatives are Roman Catholic, I attended Catholic
> summer camp six weeks long, and been in many a MASS and heard some
> good messages by a few Priest. Also I have spoke to nuns and priest
> that came to hear me in the past. I know what I am talking about and
> your the ignorant one. Go to Jersey City NJ and you can attend daily
> mass, some as many as six in one morning, such as in San Antonio,
> Texas as well as Mexico and the Philippines. I been to them, I even
> see one of the past Pope's in person, as well as other leaders of the
> Roman Catholic Church. You need to study some, as it does not matter
> what you "never heard of" it happens daily in even in Spain and other
> nations that the Roman Catholic Church has lots of members.
>
>>
>>> , so they now
>>> can get a pass to bypass the bible and get to heaven some other way.
>>> Not going to happen.
>>> Matt 22:11-14
>>
>> Clearly not those things that feed your wild imagination.
>
> Then I do not have any wild imagination, every thing I know, I learned
> by study and reading as well as talking to church leaders.
>
>>
>>> 11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there
>>> who did not have on a wedding garment. ļæ½12 So he said to him, 'Friend,
>>> how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was
>>> speechless. ļæ½13 Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and
>> benefit of Baptism. ļæ½I await you silly answer here.
>>> You really make no sense at all. ļæ½It means this: "(theology) in
>>> Roman Catholicism, the place of unbaptized but innocent or righteous
>>> souls (such as infants and virtuous individuals)"
>
>> It means this: ļæ½Christians..........
>
> It means that doctrine is not from God or the Bible but only from the
> man made built on Peter Roman Catholic church that does these things
> without foundations in the Holy Word of God the Holy Bible.
>
>>
>>> All man made doctrines never appoved by God. ļæ½Justification and glory
>>
>> How would you know. ļæ½You ignore all the teachings of Christ.
>> are. ļæ½John 21:25.
Bob Young
On 1/4/10 12:17 PM, in article
72ee2b0a-c888-4394...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
<rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28 2009, 1:53ļæ½pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:02:12 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 27, 5:44 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:51:06 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? It was not hell,
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the
>>>>>> righteous.
>>>>>> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is
>>>>>> not for
>>>>>> man to know.
>>>>>> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the
>>>>>> case of
>>>>>> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>>>>> The Catholic church uses the term purgatory, the story of laz was in
>>>>> Paradise before the resurrection, as Hell was also in that one place
>>>>> understood as the place of the dead and they could see each other.
>>>> Purgatory = supposed place of purging. The new Christians had to be made to
>>>> understand.
>>> Why there is no such place to start with and not a word of it is from
>>> the Bible so the Christian need to understand it is only a make
>>> believed place
>>
>> "Who" said there was no such place to start with? ļæ½It's scriptural as no man
>> is
>> pure enough to stand before God without attaining a degree of purification.
>> Heb
>> 12:14.
>
> Only Christ Jesus is pure enough and by Him we stand in His
> purification, that is one reason Jesus died and rose from the dead to
> pay for our sins and only by His blood given freely on the cross can
> we have such purification. Nothing we do will ever make or give
> anyone a degree of purification.
Do you 'believers' never realise that were your god for real NONE of you
would be arguing about what it stands for and what it does not stand for.
Your inflammatory dialogue proves one thing - your god is solely the product
of man, so therefore becomes the subject of man's desires and differences.
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Man creates his gods in his own image,
then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N ļæ½ it is all in the mind,
an escape from lifeļæ½s realities and hardships,
sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
Oh how I wish there were a loving god. A god that would take care of manļæ½s
ills and fulfill his desires and dreams. But I have the common sense and
intelligence to know that this is simply the way man wishes things to be.
>
>>
>>> Ever hear of a MASS that does not take money in for praying
>>> for the souls that missed Heaven and really went to hell
>>
>> As a Roman Catholic attending daily Mass, I never hear of such a thing. ļæ½No
>> wonder you're a protest_er, you're totally ignorant of the RCC..
>
> Oh please half of my relatives are Roman Catholic, I attended Catholic
> summer camp six weeks long, and been in many a MASS and heard some
> good messages by a few Priest. Also I have spoke to nuns and priest
> that came to hear me in the past. I know what I am talking about and
> your the ignorant one. Go to Jersey City NJ and you can attend daily
> mass, some as many as six in one morning, such as in San Antonio,
> Texas as well as Mexico and the Philippines. I been to them, I even
> see one of the past Pope's in person, as well as other leaders of the
> Roman Catholic Church. You need to study some, as it does not matter
> what you "never heard of" it happens daily in even in Spain and other
> nations that the Roman Catholic Church has lots of members.
>
>>
>>> , so they now
>>> can get a pass to bypass the bible and get to heaven some other way.
>>> Not going to happen.
>>> Matt 22:11-14
>>
>> Clearly not those things that feed your wild imagination.
>
> Then I do not have any wild imagination, every thing I know, I learned
> by study and reading as well as talking to church leaders.
>
>>
>>> 11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there
>>> who did not have on a wedding garment. ļæ½12 So he said to him, 'Friend,
>>> how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was
>>> speechless. ļæ½13 Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and
>> benefit of Baptism. ļæ½I await you silly answer here.
>>> You really make no sense at all. ļæ½It means this: "(theology) in
>>> Roman Catholicism, the place of unbaptized but innocent or righteous
>>> souls (such as infants and virtuous individuals)"
>
>> It means this: ļæ½Christians..........
>
> It means that doctrine is not from God or the Bible but only from the
> man made built on Peter Roman Catholic church that does these things
> without foundations in the Holy Word of God the Holy Bible.
>
>>
>>> All man made doctrines never appoved by God. ļæ½Justification and glory
>>
>> How would you know. ļæ½You ignore all the teachings of Christ.
>> are. ļæ½John 21:25.
duke
>On Dec 28 2009, 1:53�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:02:12 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 27, 5:44 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:51:06 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? It was not hell, for
>> >> >> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
>> >> >> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
>> >> >> man to know.
>> >> >> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
>> >> >> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>> >> >The Catholic church uses the term purgatory, the story of laz was in
>> >> >Paradise before the resurrection, as Hell was also in that one place
>> >> >understood as the place of the dead and they could see each other.
>> >> Purgatory = supposed place of purging. The new Christians had to be made to understand.
>> >Why there is no such place to start with and not a word of it is from
>> >the Bible so the Christian need to understand it is only a make
>> >believed place
>>
>> "Who" said there was no such place to start with? �It's scriptural as no man is
>> pure enough to stand before God without attaining a degree of purification. Heb
>> 12:14.
>Only Christ Jesus is pure enough and by Him we stand in His
>purification,
Well, yes. He uses a purification process to do that.
> that is one reason Jesus died and rose from the dead to
>pay for our sins and only by His blood given freely on the cross can
>we have such purification.
You digress. God became man to redeem us from sin and to restore salvation of
souls. WHY..........would Jesus die on the cross to pay for something? I say
he died on the cross to show us unquestioned obedience to the Father, and so in
that way, we too would/could be raised to new life as he was.
He even begged his Father to spare him the cup - not his will but the Father's
will.
>Nothing we do will ever make or give anyone a degree of purification.
Jesus runs the factory.
>> > Ever hear of a MASS that does not take money in for praying
>> >for the souls that missed Heaven and really went to hell
>> As a Roman Catholic attending daily Mass, I never hear of such a thing. �No
>> wonder you're a protest_er, you're totally ignorant of the RCC..
>Oh please half of my relatives are Roman Catholic, I attended Catholic
>summer camp six weeks long, and been in many a MASS and heard some
>good messages by a few Priest. Also I have spoke to nuns and priest
>that came to hear me in the past. I know what I am talking about and
>your the ignorant one.
Attending a summer camp hardly prepares you for correcting a Catholic. I
suspect you're never been to a Mass, at least not one that collects money for
souls.
>> >, so they now
>> >can get a pass to bypass the bible and get to heaven some other way.
>> >Not going to happen.
>> >Matt 22:11-14
>> Clearly not those things that feed your wild imagination.
>Then I do not have any wild imagination, every thing I know, I learned
>by study and reading as well as talking to church leaders.
Protesting leaders?
>> Yep, God calls all men, but few are without sin to the point that they can go to
>> purgatory.
>Show me the verse that says there is such a place as Purgatory. It
>is not found in the Bible and the only chance people have of salvation
>is when they are alive, as after death comes the Judgement. 2 Cor
>6:1-2
There are 2 judgments. And a "place" is a no show. It's a purification.
>Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.
>NKJV
Only the saved as judged by Jesus are then purified before they can stand before
God.
Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
>> >Yes the Catholic church has many false doctrines such as this one on
>> >Limbo.
>> How do you know how God handles the infants and youth that die without the
>> benefit of Baptism. �I await you silly answer here.
>How do I know?
Yes, how do you know?
> I know God and have studied and taught His Word for
>over 50 years now. Infants have no sin, there is no such thing as we
>are under the sin of Adam and Eve.
You didn't learn very well.
Romans 5:12-14 (New International Version)
Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through
sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned� 13for before the
law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when
there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time
of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam,
who was a pattern of the one to come.
> A child is born without sin, as
>such has to learned and only them that REPENT as Peter who you call
>your first Pope himself said. A child or infant can not repent and no
>one can repent for them, Baptism is for believers also as Peter
>pointed out in. The promise is for their children they also when they
>understand what sin is need to Repent. I was baptized as a infant and
>if I did not find the paper that said I was, I would never have know
>it, as I was a sinner baptism or no baptism. Your answer is silly
>mind is from the Holy Bible that even the here by the guy you say,
>your church was built on, be nice to obey him, then false teachers
>have fogged your mind and without understanding one misses the mark
>and is lost.
>Baptism is not a benefit it is a time to accept and confess Jesus as
>Lord and Saviour, no one else can do it for you, a baby can not do
>such until they are older and understand.
Infant baptism removes the stain of original sin (see Romans above) - this is
required before one can enter the kingdom of God. John 3:5.
Whe the infant attains the age young adult maturity and can speak for himself,
he confirms his baptismal promises in the sacrament of Confirmation.
>You see reader it is not what I think is true on these matters it is
>what says the LORD in the Holy Bible.
I completely agree.
> The last verses I quoted here was not from Peter but from JESUS
Jesus taught Peter.
>> > You really make no sense at all. �It means this: "(theology) in
>> >Roman Catholicism, the place of unbaptized but innocent or righteous
>> >souls (such as infants and virtuous individuals)"
>
>> It means this: �Christians..........
>
>It means that doctrine is not from God or the Bible but only from the
>man made built on Peter Roman Catholic church that does these things
>without foundations in the Holy Word of God the Holy Bible.
Jesus taught Peter.
>> >All man made doctrines never appoved by God. �Justification and glory
>> How would you know. �You ignore all the teachings of Christ.
>I know as I take the time to read all what JESUS CHRIST said, did and
>all His Teachings, years in Bible college and as a teacher of the Holy
>Bible, full of the Holy Spirit of God and in in love with all my heart
>the Lord Jesus and all that He has said.
You clearly ignore a LOT of what he said.
>As well as over many years
>as a clergyman and full time missionary in different nations. I never
>ignore the teachings of Christ, I do ignore the teachings of popes and
>false teachers and such that in no way represents God or the Lord
>Jesus Christ. You accept the teachings of your church and you are the
>that ignore the teachings of Christ. Then "ignore all" is too, too
>general a statement as many follow some, and do not understand all.
>Nice try, but the Word of God even the words of Peter condemns your
>statements and is not the teachings of the Holy Word of God as the RCC
>try to trick people into believing them.
It's in the Holy Bible. Why don't you pay attention?
Quite frankly, I don't see how any person familiar with the NT would be anything
but Roman Catholic. The OT prefigured the NT and the Messiah. The NT fulfilled
the OT.
>> >1. The glory which disembodied spirits are enjoying now. The moment
>> >that the soul leaves the body, the justified soul is in glory.
>> >Romanism holds that some of the best saints go to heaven when they
>> >die; but that the great mass of inferior saints must undergo
>> >purgation.
>>
>> It's scriptural.
>No it is not! It is only a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church
>which sits on seven mountains that Rome and the Vatican sit on. The
>bible points out who they are. Rev 17:9-18
Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
>> > But the dying thief was no eminent saint. The only good
>> >deed that we ever read of his doing was when he claimed Christ as
>> >Lord, and rebuked his fellow-thief for slandering the Saviour. Yet,
>> >hear the words, "To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise."
>> Those very words are what got him there, but "to day" does not mean in the next
>> 24 hours.
>It means to the reader TODAY NOW IS THE TIME then if you do not want a
>24 hour day, try what God says is One day. Rev 17:9-18
As a thousand years.
>> You're trying to play silly games with the afterlife.
>I do not play games silly or otherwise with the life after death to
>the body, I do trust the Lord Jesus and His promises.
You sure do reject a lot of what he said in scripture.
>> >LIMBO
>> >Limbo. In Roman Catholic theology, the region or state proximate to
>> >heaven (limbo is from the Latin word for "edge" or "border") in which
>> >reside departed souls who do not enjoy the beatific vision but do not
>> >suffer any other privation. Two kinds of limbo are distinguished: the
>> >limbus patrum, or limbo of the Old Testament believers, and the limbus
>> >infantium, the limbo of unbaptized infants.
>> And what is your problem with trying to satiate the immature mind of man.
>Such doctrines are the teaching of immature minds that ratter follow a
>man then God and the Holy Bible.
Go back and read John 3:5-7 and you'll change your mind.
>> The things that Jesus said that are not recorded far outnumber the ones that
>> are. �John 21:25.
>Yes only what he did say and do, you do not follow,
We Roman Catholics are the ones that pay attention to ALL he said.
>> >You going to do as you did before make believe you never read this as
>> >this may prove your faith has been wrong all this time?
>> Not a chance of that as you can't defend the opposite.
>Why should I defend falsehoods? Then you may only have one chance and
>when you put the words of popes and priest above the teaching of the
>FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIIRT you loose and then comes the
>judgement.
What the Pope says is found in scripture.
>> >> >The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
>> >> >in Scripture.
>> >> Don't be so stupid. The Catholic Church is not only the Church that Christ
>> >> founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church that most fully follows
>> >> scripture and locked in on the bible.
>> Another absolutely beautiful no response.
>Rejecting or denying the bible and things you refuse to check out as
>no response shows the readers you are lying
I know what is in scripture.
duke
>> Only Christ Jesus is pure enough and by Him we stand in His
>> purification, that is one reason Jesus died and rose from the dead to
>> pay for our sins and only by His blood given freely on the cross can
>> we have such purification. Nothing we do will ever make or give
>> anyone a degree of purification.
>Do you 'believers' never realise that were your god for real NONE of you
>would be arguing about what it stands for and what it does not stand for.
>
>Your inflammatory dialogue proves one thing - your god is solely the product
>of man, so therefore becomes the subject of man's desires and differences.
Yet we Catholics accept everything God says and he doesn't.
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:mrqrj59nquv99mbo8...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:39:53 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:4c5pj5t8ut4ub294s...@4ax.com... Nothing worth
>>>repeating!
>>
>>>Your nonsensical bullcrap about a mythical "Purgatory" snipped.
>>
>> Tsk, tsk, fn. It's not a matter of a place. It's a matter of a
>> purification.
>
>Tsk, tsk, and tsk.... there's no mention of a purgatory in the bible, or
>rosary beads or confession booths.....
But purification and prayer and confession as actions are clearly there.
>> I'm a Christian. I go by the NT and the new covenant given us by Christ.
>Really? So your church removed the OT from the RC bible? You only print and
>use the NT?
The OT prefigures the NT in the coming of the Messiah. The NT fulfills the
prophesies of the OT.
A new covenant (agreement) is clearly identified to complete and replace the old
covenant.
> That means the story of Genesis was given up. The story of the
>flood etc. Strange that my Aunt's priest never mentioned they now have an
>all new Bible sans the OT.
You wouldn't have understood.
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:k3rrj5dofvccrjlj0...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:42:31 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:r95pj55pj2i606oih...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 02:15:52 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>>>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>>>>I already did. Judgment day has not yet come or we would not be here
>>>>>debating on the BS the RCC dreamed up.
>>>>
>>>> Judgment day is individual at the time of physical death. Read your
>>>> bible.
>>>
>>>I already did, unlike you. Judgment day has not yet come or we would not
>>>be
>>>here debating on the self-serving BS the RCC dreamed up.
>>
>> Judgement day comes to each of us at the moment of death of the body
>> shell.
>Making the bible wrong about all those being called from their memorial
>tombs. Jesus putting the sheep on one hand and the goats on the other. The
>biblical contradictions are legendary aren't they?
No. Scripture says that at the moment Jesus died, the souls of the dead rose
from their graves to new life.
The goats are those that didn't listen to God and go straight to hell. The
sheep did and go to heaven via purification.
> The
>> Jews that died in the friendship of God were raised to new life at the
>> moment
>> Jesus died on the cross. Read your bible.
>I already did. You need to read a real bible instead of the one given you
>lacking even the OT.
Tsk, tsk little dumb one.
Florence B. Nitengail
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 16:52:42 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:mrqrj59nquv99mbo8...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:39:53 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:4c5pj5t8ut4ub294s...@4ax.com... Nothing worth
>>>>repeating!
>>>
>>>>Your nonsensical bullcrap about a mythical "Purgatory" snipped.
>>>
>>> Tsk, tsk, fn. It's not a matter of a place. It's a matter of a
>>> purification.
>>
>>Tsk, tsk, and tsk.... there's no mention of a purgatory in the bible, or
>>rosary beads or confession booths.....
>
> But purification and prayer and confession as actions are clearly there.
Only if you WANT to believe the nonsense of the RCC.
>
>>> I'm a Christian. I go by the NT and the new covenant given us by
>>> Christ.
>
>>Really? So your church removed the OT from the RC bible? You only print
>>and
>>use the NT?
>
> The OT prefigures the NT in the coming of the Messiah. The NT fulfills
> the
> prophesies of the OT.
So?
>
> A new covenant (agreement) is clearly identified to complete and replace
> the old
> covenant.
>
>> That means the story of Genesis was given up. The story of the
>>flood etc. Strange that my Aunt's priest never mentioned they now have an
>>all new Bible sans the OT.
>
> You wouldn't have understood.
Maybe because I'm not a Pope with an aganda......
Florence B. Nitengail
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 16:58:05 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> shell.
>
>>Making the bible wrong about all those being called from their memorial
>>tombs. Jesus putting the sheep on one hand and the goats on the other.
>>The
>>biblical contradictions are legendary aren't they?
>
> No. Scripture says that at the moment Jesus died, the souls of the dead
> rose
> from their graves to new life.
Wow.... just one contradiction after the other. Just take your pick of
which one fits your agenda. ;-)
>
> The goats are those that didn't listen to God and go straight to hell.
> The
> sheep did and go to heaven via purification.
What "purification?" Your Popes came up with some really profitable and
scary crap to control and fleece the gullible.
>
>>I already did. You need to read a real bible instead of the one given you
>>lacking even the OT.
>
> Tsk, tsk little dumb one.
Tsk, Tsk.... littler dumber one suckered by a profit minded so-called
church.
RWKnapp
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 10:36:32 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 1, 7:29 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:14:44 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
Hi Duke,
> >> >> >I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
> >> >Hope that helps.
> >> I hope you're not doing that satan trick any more.
> >Nope that is your way, when I let Jesus Christ into my life and I gave
> >all my life to God, I suppose one could say I did kick that old master
> >Satan and his tricks in the behind and Jesus tossed him away and set
> >his punishment to Hell and them that do as he does to follow satan in
> >to the lake of fire. So now why don't you do the same?
>
> Letting Jesus into your life is a huge leap forward from being a satanist
> spiritual medium.
Yes it is and it is a joy to know that Jesus love me and now in Christ
there is power over satanist and spiritual mediums, I have prayed for
people with those kind of problems and God did answer prayer.
>
> But it's more than letting Jesus into your life. It's a matter of following
> Jesus by living in his spirit. Protestants like to talk about there being
> nothing we can do re salvation, but the truth is that we have everything to do
> with losing that salvation. In fact, scripture clearly says that if we want to
> he his disciple, we must repent of our sins, PICK UP OUR OWN CROSS, and follow
> him in service to God and mankind. John 13:34, Mat 7:21, Mat 25:31-46.
I have a problem with people that feel they need to point to a church
group as it being a Protestant, Catholic, Atheist, Muslin instead of
just dealing with the person and their problem. We can always point
out that all the rules and such of a group is not responsible for how
a person acts or accept things etc. We can pick apart any church by
its members and that is not fair.
I am sure if your like me, that it is offensive for people to use a
general term and apply such to me or to you, should we say all
Catholics do this or that etc, I am not a Protestant, I am a Christian
that loves Jesus. I am sure many protestant or Catholic or Islamic
like to talk about this or that. I really do not care what someone
else say or does. It is an excuse to avoid a real answer of what a
person is doing. Like some church handles snakes and other anoint
with oil. some were robes as some pastor wear vestments and other do
not. Big deal what does that have to do with us or these matters?
Really how many times have you ever picked up CROSS the size that
JESUS did? We may wear a small cross but we do not PICK up the CROSS
that is like the one Jesus did. When I read "In fact, scripture
clearly says" if that was so, we all would belong to one church and
agree on the same thing. Which we both know is not what is fact, you
try to make a point with such terms, but for thousand of years and
thousands of churches and groups. Shows us such a statement leaves
more questions then not. We have people that are educated in these
matters and good people that just hear what the pastor or the priest
say and take it for the truth and there is no other truth. One reason
even in the Catholic Church we find Sisters of Saint..... and Brothers
of ........ as well as Monks and other if they were protestant would
be seen as denominations. My Dad use to say "it is clear as MUD"!
>
> And 1 JOhn 1:9-10 clearly says we live a life of sin. So loss of salvation
> rests solely in our hands. Heb 10:26-27. Choose wisely.
Here you go again if it was so clearly to all there be no argument or
post on this. I am not sure why you bring this up, as I have no
problem agreeing with that. Be nice if you would read and apply to
what was said, and not just popping in something that is not a
problem. Then we can point out, the loss of salvation may rest in
our hands but not solely, as Satan and others temp people, one can
yield or not to such. If there was no temptation or no devil etc,
they would not have sin to loss their salvation. So there is no just
clearly anything. Life is not that simple. Many priest have done
things the Pope or the Church did not approve us, even if it was very
clear that the law of the church or the word of GOD said not to do
this or that. I suppose if it was so clear they would lock themselves
in a confessional and the side the priest enters and never leave it,
and if they do, they blame the Bishop or the Church for not keeping
away from their want to sin with others. Then in Christ they have a
chance to repent and such really rest in the hands of God, man does
not go to Heaven as it is not on them but on God to accept them in the
first place.
>
> >> >> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
> >> >> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
> >> >> doctrine.
> >> >Like any group just because the members of that group spent years in
> >> >research does not make them collect, look at the Buddhist religion,
> >> >they date back to the with in 500 years after Abraham time. Making
> >> >their teachings over four thousand years old, not as long as the Old
> >> >Testament, and Jewish people could of shown Buddha the Word of God.
> >> >Many of the teachings are about the same as found in Proverbs, and
> >> >originally they did believe only ONE GOD.
> >> Actually they don't believe in any god.
> >You seem not to know much about them Buddhist either, some do not have
> >any god, but many gods, in one temple that was near the town I lived
> >in for many years, had a Temple with 10,000 gods images all just a few
> >inches tall.
>
> http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
> Do Buddhist believe in god?
Many do! I have had a Buddhist priest tell one of our members that
went to the Temple with her family, she being a Christian and at the
same time obeying her mother and father as the Bible says to do. The
priest told her she was a Christian and had already reached
"Enlightenment" and is blessed by God. They say they have to work at
that enlightenment and hope someday they will reach it. I also have
had Buddhist monks and nuns as me about Jesus and how to attend the
Grace and Mercy of God. Originally if you would check Buddha preached
about ONE GOD and he preached how to please God so they may get closer
to God. Now it seems they have many kinds of images of Buddha and
Buddha told people He is not a god and should not treat him as a god.
We know by looking and how people pray and such it seems they do, no
matter what the monk says.
> No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern
> sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the
> god idea have their origin in fear.
It is interesting you speak about the Buddha or buddhist, have you
ever been in their temple, have you ever talked one on one with them.
I have and many are good people, just looking for a way to go to
Heaven, as they have many heavens. What you point to them is the same
as I see in many Roman Catholics so what? I have found many
religionist or all faiths with the god ideal and they origin in
fear.And while we are pointing to this, what brings more fear then
telling people if they do not join and obey the catholic faith they
will not go to Heaven, and if they are not Catholic they can not take
part in the MASS and so would go to hell etc. One has to pray so many
Hail Mary and so many Our Fathers etc, and at least go the
Confessional once or more in a year of they would go to Hell. That is
all based in the origin in fear. The Buddhist wear robes like priest
do and even have Nuns like the Catholic church does as well as Order
and Monks like the Catholic church has and prayer beads like the
Catholic have. You need not go there but you did. Jesus said fear
not! How many Christians follow that or accept that as truth, they
fear when anything happens that may hurt them, all people even demons
do.
> >> But my point is that millions of manhours of research have gone into Scripture,
> >> pulling all the parts together in an effort to understand God's message to us.
> >> That being said, how can protestant individuals who by and large reject much of
> >> scripture tell the RCC it's wrong?
> >You believe your priest too much, the Protestant see that the Catholic
> >rejected much of the Scriptures
>
> We did??? Where? Jesus taught Peter and the Apostles. Peter, the first Pope,
Who is the "We" here, only you or the "we" as a teaching of the
Catholic church and the followers of such? Peter or the Bible ever
said he was a POPE and JAMES sat Peter down and told him his problems
so if anyone would of been the first pope it would of been James the
half bother of Jesus Christ. Then that would mess up a lot of
Catholic teachings about the Mother of Jesus.
> taught the 2nd pope St. Linus (67-76) who taught the 3rd Pope St. Anacletus
> (Cletus) (76-88) who taught the 4th pope St. Clement I (88-97).............who
> taught the 265th Pope John Paul II (1978-2005) who taught the 266th Pope
> Benedict XVI (2005—).
If you want to go to all the Popes then tell us about a woman pope
also, or did you not learn about her? Did any of these Popes you
referent here not have a WIFE as Peter sure did, and the Church with
out the permission of history and its Popes now will not let a Roman
Catholic priest marry or take a wife and still be the a priest. So
if you want to go to Peter, the doctrines of Peter is not the
doctrines in many areas of the Roman Catholic Church today.
>
> The Catholic Church is responsible for the bible.
No it is not they just copied it from and we find now that early monks
and such long before any Catholic church was built already had copies
of the Bible. Evidents of such found in the caves of the area and
time of Christ. If we want to bring in the responsibly of the Bible
we would have to point to them that printed the bible and the pope at
that time did not approve, and it if was not for the Martin Luther and
others the Holy Bible would still be chained to a pulpit in the center
of the church and only priest and monks etc were able to look at it.
The English Bible that we use here in English had nothing to do with
the Catholic Church they wanted only Latin a languages most people did
not know or understand.
>
> (In his commentary on St John, (Chapter 16) Martin Luther wrote, "We are
> obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) that they possess
> the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have
> known nothing at all about it.")
Oh may, to use Martin Luther you seem to forget that the POPE
EXCUMUCATED as a false teacher and monk, and now you use his words,
seems like even you do not accept what the Church or Pope says. He
said "to yield many things" which as tells us that
He did not agree with many things also. I have no problem with the
Catholic Church or the Greek Orthodox churches etc, as they also keep
the bible from being destroyed and hid it from such people so we have
it today. The monks that copied it over and over again trying to keep
it to the original did a great job. Then they did no write the text
they only copied it, be like me saying all the honor today has nothing
to do with any church, but the one that made the printing press and
those that made the paper to print on or the story that sells it.
Lots of people many not catholic some only for profit keeps the Holy
Bible in the stores so we today can have a Bible. I do not buy a
Bible from the Pope or a Catholic book Store, I buy them and I have
used many over the years till they wear out and are falling apart,
need a replacement from any book store that has them. Now can get
them over the Internet.
>
> > and add to the Bible books that even
> >the Jews rejected they put into the Word of God, where St. John wrote
> >not to ADD to the Word of God. They do reject bowing to images and
> >praying to the dead saints and such, as wrong.
>
> NOT a chance. The protestants removed from the bible.
They are seen as Old Testament records and the stories in many do not
fit the record in the Holy Word. They were rejected by the early
church and added only later by the Catholic Church. So their
doctrines would fit the Bible as they did not till they added them.
By the way, I have those books in a book by themselves, I can
reference them or read them, so why do you thing one needs to have
them in the Bible itself.
It is called the APOCRYPHA 14 books of the Old Testament included in
the Vulgate (except for II Esdras) but omitted in Jewish and
Protestant versions of the Bible; eastern Christian churches (except
the Coptic Church) accept all these books as canonical; the Russian
Orthodox Church accepts these texts as divinely inspired but does not
grant them the same status.
> The books of the Apocrypha, which is strictly Old Testament, were rejected as
> canon scripture by the Jews because they were written in Greece rather than the
> Holy Land.
More information on that in my reply above this statement of yours.
Like I said I have them and they are index so I can read them easier.
The book I have was says it is According to the Authorized Version
with the seal of "Her Majesty's Printer" which shows me the Protestant
Queen ok'ed it and had it printed, does not sound like your story at
all. Has offices in London, Eyre and Spottiswoode limited, as well as
New York: Harper & Brothers publishers.
My copy was printed in Great Britain. The Introduction to the
Apocrypha has the history of the book and history in fine print, pages
on pager going back to the Greek Septuagint the earliest Christian
Bible the authors of the Apocrypha are unknown with the exception of
Jesus the son of Sirahch (the author of the Ecclesilastricus and James
of Cyrene those five books are summarized in II Maccabees. Get a copy
of it and learn something, it is too much to post here and I am not
sure if there is a copyright by the printer on it or not. I had that
book for fifty years now. I may look for a new copy as my is old and
the binding is not holding up as I would like it to.
>
> So the protestants, who reject so much of NT scripture and siding with the Jews,
> took the Apocrypha out of their bibles.
I suppose to retaliate, we could say the Catholics who rejected so
mush of the NT etc......... I have it and many Pastors I know have
it, so what does that have to do with anything. No Protestant has
destroyed it or burned it etc. It is still on sale at book stores
etc.
>
> >> >> >> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
> >> >> >> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
> >> >> >> etc.
> >> >> >Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
> >> >> >there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
> >> >> Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. I am always amused at the way
> >> >> some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
> >> >> things.
> >> No response? To me, it's clear. We are born, we live, we die. Only one man
> >> went to the other side and came back to talk about it. That's Christ. To us,
> >> it has no value in details. Those details are of God only.
> >NO RESPONSE? You got to be blind or talking to someone else, I always
> >have an response, just because you do not accept them or disagree,
> >doesn't mean anything you get a response, if I see your post.
>
> When I use "no response", that means you offered no counter response at the end
> of my comment, of which I thought you would say something. You can see from
> above that the discussion moved from 4> to 2>, or when you read this, it should
> be from 5> to 3>.
All what I offer is to counter your response as ALL that I am posting
today does, then I am also addressing the Readers so they can see why
you have a problem
>
> >We are born to die. Simple as that. Jesus did just that, then you seem to
> >forget that Jesus Moses and Abraham who had died and went to heaven,
> >did show up on a mountain and the Apostles seen them so they did come
> >back and bible does talk about it.
>
> Well, I believe it was Elijah rather than Abraham but congrats on being the
> first protestant ever to acknowledge salvation of non-Christians, even though
> they didn't say anything, plus not having to wait for THE "resurrection".
I am not the first Protestant and there is no way for you to know if
that is true either, as I learned over the years there are billions of
people out there and it is hard to find anyone that agree with
everyone or that one person is the only one that said this or that.
That may make you think you sound good, in fact it is not a fact so
such is useless to prove anything at all. I never heard does not
mean I am correct, only I personally never heard any Catholic Bishop
say non-Christians can have salvation. Salvation is from a God and He
and only He has the right to acknowledge who is or who is not. I do
now by cannon law the Bible law that sin is what separates a person
from salvation. We are not accountable for what someone else did or
did not do, even our family. We are asked to be born or what sex we
are it is out of our control even if today some think they can choose
what their child will be. Sin not age has to do with this, and a
child is innocent and Jesus did say this:
Matt 18:2-5
2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of
them, 3 and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted
and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom
of heaven. 4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child
is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever receives one
little child like this in My name receives Me.
> > I am not sure what you think you mean
> >by the "To us it has no value in details. Those details are of God
> >only?" All that the Holy Word of God the Bible has to say should mean
> >and have value to them that say they are believers in Christ Jesus.
>
> What I mean, rk, is that we die, as you said above. Now whether we are dealing
> with "lakes of fire, first death, 2nd death, purgatory, heaven, hell" is not for
> man to talk of with authority. It's simple - we die and then are judged for the
> way we lived our human lives - the details of what comes next are beyond our
> control and authority. Our primary concern for the after is the way we lived
> the before.
The Lake of Fire the Bible says will be for the Devil and those that
follow him. That judgement is given and in time will happen.
Since there is no purgatory and the Bible never used that term as it
gives a second chance where the Bible does not, if one rejects Jesus
there is no second opportunity to miss hell, Now is the time to repent
and be saved, if one rejects that payment for sins, they rejected
Jesus as saviour. We are to judge ourselves today, and everyday, as
it says Judge one another as we Judge ourselves and with such
judgement we will be judged. Jesus is the one that judges us today if
we follow him, the second death means nothing to us, as we already
have a home in Heaven and Jesus said He want to prepare a place for
us. Hell was for the devil and evil, if you do what you can do to not
sin and not do evil, Jesus is our lawyer and He by His blood paid the
price, as St John wrote in first John Chapter one verses one to seven
nice to read the whole book it is short and anyone should be able to
understand it, if they have a education even of grade school.
I have no problem with agreeing with you on "Our primary concern for
the after is the way we live the before, if we add to that faith and
trust in God and that Jesus is our Redeemer and He and only is the Way
the truth and the life.
Raymond
Patrick
>>>> Perhaps you should read the New Testament where Peter
Florence B. Nitengail
>> purgatory dreamed up by some Pope.
>
> Perhaps you should read the New Testament where Peter
> asked Jesus if he could set up tents for a couple
> of "dead guys" who met Him on a mountain.......
>
So Ec lied? Another biblical contradiction? Suddenly when they started the
NT there were the living dead? Direct me to the scriptures describing the
living dead.
Bob Young
On 1/4/10 9:25 PM, in article jvq3k5171e803crt3...@4ax.com,
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2010 04:03:02 -0600, Bob Young <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
>>> Only Christ Jesus is pure enough and by Him we stand in His
>>> purification, that is one reason Jesus died and rose from the dead to
>>> pay for our sins and only by His blood given freely on the cross can
>>> we have such purification. Nothing we do will ever make or give
>>> anyone a degree of purification.
>
>> Do you 'believers' never realise that were your god for real NONE of you
>> would be arguing about what it stands for and what it does not stand for.
>>
>> Your inflammatory dialogue proves one thing - your god is solely the product
>> of man, so therefore becomes the subject of man's desires and differences.
>
> Yet we Catholics accept everything God says and he doesn't.
Well you know what they say 'Two wrongs don't make a right'
duke
>> Letting Jesus into your life is a huge leap forward from being a satanist
>> spiritual medium.
>Yes it is and it is a joy to know that Jesus love me and now in Christ
>there is power over satanist and spiritual mediums, I have prayed for
>people with those kind of problems and God did answer prayer.
Great.
>> But it's more than letting Jesus into your life. �It's a matter of following
>> Jesus by living in his spirit. �Protestants like to talk about there being
>> nothing we can do re salvation, but the truth is that we have everything to do
>> with losing that salvation. �In fact, scripture clearly says that if we want to
>> he his disciple, we must repent of our sins, PICK UP OUR OWN CROSS, and follow
>> him in service to God and mankind. �John 13:34, Mat 7:21, Mat 25:31-46. � �
>I have a problem with people that feel they need to point to a church
>group as it being a Protestant, Catholic, Atheist, Muslin instead of
>just dealing with the person and their problem. We can always point
>out that all the rules and such of a group is not responsible for how
>a person acts or accept things etc. We can pick apart any church by
>its members and that is not fair.
Good point, but I don't pick apart a church basis it's members, but instead pick
apart the teaching to it's members because of their church.
Their church promotes and drives their daily lives/
>I am sure if your like me, that it is offensive for people to use a
>general term and apply such to me or to you, should we say all
>Catholics do this or that etc, I am not a Protestant, I am a Christian
>that loves Jesus.
I'm sure you are. But there are major mistakes to be made basis what you learn
from your church.
> I am sure many protestant or Catholic or Islamic
>like to talk about this or that. I really do not care what someone
>else say or does. It is an excuse to avoid a real answer of what a
>person is doing. Like some church handles snakes and other anoint
>with oil. some were robes as some pastor wear vestments and other do
>not. Big deal what does that have to do with us or these matters?
>Really how many times have you ever picked up CROSS the size that
>JESUS did? We may wear a small cross but we do not PICK up the CROSS
>that is like the one Jesus did.
That cross is not a wooden one but the burdens of our lives - illness, money,
family problems, etc - but still maintaining our belief in Christ and his love
instead of turning from him.
> When I read "In fact, scripture
>clearly says" if that was so, we all would belong to one church and
>agree on the same thing.
And why don't we? One faith tells us to kill in God's name, another to follow
every word of Jesus, another to turn form God, etc.
>> And 1 JOhn 1:9-10 clearly says we live a life of sin. �So loss of salvation
>> rests solely in our hands. �Heb 10:26-27. �Choose wisely.
>Here you go again if it was so clearly to all there be no argument or
>post on this. I am not sure why you bring this up, as I have no
>problem agreeing with that.
Because so many don't agree.
> Be nice if you would read and apply to
>what was said, and not just popping in something that is not a
>problem. Then we can point out, the loss of salvation may rest in
>our hands but not solely, as Satan and others temp people, one can
>yield or not to such.
You don't..........believe that satan is the evil in our own hearts that we
gleefully turn to?
>If there was no temptation or no devil etc,
>they would not have sin to loss their salvation. So there is no just
>clearly anything. Life is not that simple. Many priest have done
>things the Pope or the Church did not approve us, even if it was very
>clear that the law of the church or the word of GOD said not to do
>this or that. I suppose if it was so clear they would lock themselves
>in a confessional and the side the priest enters and never leave it,
>and if they do, they blame the Bishop or the Church for not keeping
>away from their want to sin with others. Then in Christ they have a
>chance to repent and such really rest in the hands of God, man does
>not go to Heaven as it is not on them but on God to accept them in the
>first place.
>> http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
>> Do Buddhist believe in god?
>Many do! I have had a Buddhist priest tell one of our members that
>went to the Temple with her family, she being a Christian and at the
>same time obeying her mother and father as the Bible says to do. The
>priest told her she was a Christian and had already reached
>"Enlightenment" and is blessed by God. They say they have to work at
>that enlightenment and hope someday they will reach it. I also have
>had Buddhist monks and nuns as me about Jesus and how to attend the
>Grace and Mercy of God. Originally if you would check Buddha preached
>about ONE GOD and he preached how to please God so they may get closer
>to God. Now it seems they have many kinds of images of Buddha and
>Buddha told people He is not a god and should not treat him as a god.
>We know by looking and how people pray and such it seems they do, no
>matter what the monk says.
Interesting. I did a google on Buddhists and saw where they don't believe in a
god. But not my problem.
>.And while we are pointing to this, what brings more fear then
>telling people if they do not join and obey the catholic faith they
>will not go to Heaven, and if they are not Catholic they can not take
>part in the MASS and so would go to hell etc. One has to pray so many
>Hail Mary and so many Our Fathers etc, and at least go the
>Confessional once or more in a year of they would go to Hell. That is
>all based in the origin in fear.
Not true, as you explain it. God told us how to live our lives in the bible. To
sin is to break away from him. And if it's sin we want, sin we get for all
eternity.
>> >You believe your priest too much, the Protestant see that the Catholic
>> >rejected much of the Scriptures
>> We did??? �Where? �Jesus taught Peter and the Apostles. �Peter, the first Pope,
>Who is the "We" here, only you or the "we" as a teaching of the
>Catholic church and the followers of such?
> Peter or the Bible ever
>said he was a POPE and JAMES sat Peter down and told him his problems
>so if anyone would of been the first pope it would of been James the
>half bother of Jesus Christ. Then that would mess up a lot of
>Catholic teachings about the Mother of Jesus.
Jesus the man left us 2000 years ago, sent the Holy Spirit in his place, and
assigned Simon Peter the leader of his new Church on earth. No man except Jesus
was ever sinfree. Heb 4:15. The Pope is not God and only a man, and hence if
not sin free.
>> taught the 2nd pope St. Linus (67-76) who taught the 3rd Pope St. Anacletus
>> (Cletus) (76-88) who taught the 4th pope St. Clement I (88-97).............who
>> taught the 265th Pope John Paul II (1978-2005) who taught the 266th Pope
>> Benedict XVI (2005�).
>If you want to go to all the Popes then tell us about a woman pope
>also, or did you not learn about her?
She wasn't. There is only one POpe at any time, and she wasn't.
> Did any of these Popes you
>referent here not have a WIFE as Peter sure did, and the Church with
>out the permission of history and its Popes now will not let a Roman
>Catholic priest marry or take a wife and still be the a priest.
Celibacy is a discipline that priests accept. At one time priests were married,
and they imposed celibacy on themselves, not by the Pope.
> So
>if you want to go to Peter, the doctrines of Peter is not the
>doctrines in many areas of the Roman Catholic Church today.
A celibacy doctrine, which can change, is not a dogma, which cannot change.
>> The Catholic Church is responsible for the bible.
>No it is not they just copied it from and we find now that early monks
>and such long before any Catholic church was built already had copies
>of the Bible.
(In his commentary on St John, (Chapter 16) Martin Luther wrote, "We are
obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) that they possess
the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have
known nothing at all about it.")
The Catholic Church was started by Christ, and given the characteristics of the
Holy Mass, 7 sacraments and the Papacy. Why did the protest_ants turn away?
>Evidents of such found in the caves of the area and
>time of Christ. If we want to bring in the responsibly of the Bible
>we would have to point to them that printed the bible and the pope at
>that time did not approve, and it if was not for the Martin Luther and
>others the Holy Bible would still be chained to a pulpit in the center
>of the church and only priest and monks etc were able to look at it.
>The English Bible that we use here in English had nothing to do with
>the Catholic Church they wanted only Latin a languages most people did
>not know or understand.
And until about 100 years ago, the man on the street could not read or write.
And clearly, to know the word of God is to know the whole bible, not one
statement here and there. Now that's an impossible task for a anybody but a
large group of researchers.
>> (In his commentary on St John, (Chapter 16) Martin Luther wrote, "We are
>> obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) that they possess
>> the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have
>> known nothing at all about it.")
>Oh may, to use Martin Luther you seem to forget that the POPE
>EXCUMUCATED as a false teacher and monk
Luther left the Church, rejected much of that which Jesus gave his
Church on earth.
>> NOT a chance. �The protestants removed from the bible.
>They are seen as Old Testament records and the stories in many do not
>fit the record in the Holy Word. They were rejected by the early
>church and added only later by the Catholic Church.
Wrong. The Books of the Apocrypha were rejected by Jews as canon scripture
because these were written in Greece and not the Holy Land. The protest_ants,
in 1600 AD when luther broke away, removed them from the protestant bible. I
wonder why he followed the Jews instead of the Christians. Interesting
question.
>> So the protestants, who reject so much of NT scripture and siding with the Jews,
>> took the Apocrypha out of their bibles.
>I suppose to retaliate, we could say the Catholics who rejected so
>mush of the NT etc.........
Where? Everything my Church teaches is clearly still found in the bible.
>All what I offer is to counter your response as ALL that I am posting
>today does, then I am also addressing the Readers so they can see why
>you have a problem
I don't have a problem. If you can name one, I will be glad to discuss for the
benefit of the readers.
>> >We are born to die. Simple as that. �Jesus did just that, then you seem to
>> >forget that Jesus Moses and Abraham who had died and went to heaven,
>> >did show up on a mountain and the Apostles seen them so they did come
>> >back and bible does talk about it.
>> Well, I believe it was Elijah rather than Abraham but congrats on being the
>> first protestant ever to acknowledge salvation of non-Christians, even though
>> they didn't say anything, plus not having to wait for THE "resurrection".
>I am not the first Protestant and there is no way for you to know if
>that is true either, as I learned over the years there are billions of
>people out there and it is hard to find anyone that agree with
>everyone or that one person is the only one that said this or that.
?? These things come from the bible.
>That may make you think you sound good, in fact it is not a fact so
>such is useless to prove anything at all. I never heard does not
>mean I am correct, only I personally never heard any Catholic Bishop
>say non-Christians can have salvation. Salvation is from a God and He
>and only He has the right to acknowledge who is or who is not.
Exactly. Jesus did NOT say that only Christians would be saved, but instead
that he was the only way to the Father. He also said that we are called to love
one another as he loves us, and people of others faiths and non-faiths are his
creation also.
> I do
>now by cannon law the Bible law that sin is what separates a person
>from salvation.
Yep.
>> What I mean, rk, is that we die, as you said above. � Now whether we are dealing
>> with "lakes of fire, first death, 2nd death, purgatory, heaven, hell" is not for
>> man to talk of with authority. �It's simple - we die and then are judged for the
>> way we lived our human lives - the details of what comes next are beyond our
>> control and authority. �Our primary concern for the after is the way we lived
>> the before.
>The Lake of Fire the Bible says will be for the Devil and those that
>follow him.
It doesn't matter. We live then die, and from there it's heaven, or hell, or
heaven via purgatory. After that, it's not for us to worry about what comes
next.
>Since there is no purgatory and the Bible never used that term as it
>gives a second chance where the Bible does not, if one rejects Jesus
>there is no second opportunity to miss hell,
Nope, when you die, all decision making is over. If you die separated from God
ie, believing you know better than God what is right and what is wrong, then you
die with blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
When God said "do not", he meant it. There is no reason for us to think we can.
>I have no problem with agreeing with you on "Our primary concern for
>the after is the way we live the before, if we add to that faith and
>trust in God and that Jesus is our Redeemer and He and only is the Way
>the truth and the life.
That's one and the same.
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:v1r3k5ls0c87umaij...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 16:52:42 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:mrqrj59nquv99mbo8...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:39:53 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>>>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:4c5pj5t8ut4ub294s...@4ax.com... Nothing worth
>>>>>repeating!
>>>>
>>>>>Your nonsensical bullcrap about a mythical "Purgatory" snipped.
>>>>
>>>> Tsk, tsk, fn. It's not a matter of a place. It's a matter of a
>>>> purification.
>>>
>>>Tsk, tsk, and tsk.... there's no mention of a purgatory in the bible, or
>>>rosary beads or confession booths.....
>>
>> But purification and prayer and confession as actions are clearly there.
>
>Only if you WANT to believe the nonsense of the RCC.
They are spelled out in scripture. You can't find them?
>>>> I'm a Christian. I go by the NT and the new covenant given us by
>>>> Christ.
>>
>>>Really? So your church removed the OT from the RC bible? You only print
>>>and
>>>use the NT?
>>
>> The OT prefigures the NT in the coming of the Messiah. The NT fulfills
>> the
>> prophesies of the OT.
>
>So?
You brought it up.
>>> That means the story of Genesis was given up. The story of the
>>>flood etc. Strange that my Aunt's priest never mentioned they now have an
>>>all new Bible sans the OT.
>
>> You wouldn't have understood.
>Maybe because I'm not a Pope with an aganda......
That aganda [sic] will get you every time.
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:17r3k5d8g9344s26f...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 16:58:05 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Judgement day comes to each of us at the moment of death of the body
>>>> shell.
>>
>>>Making the bible wrong about all those being called from their memorial
>>>tombs. Jesus putting the sheep on one hand and the goats on the other.
>>>The
>>>biblical contradictions are legendary aren't they?
>>
>> No. Scripture says that at the moment Jesus died, the souls of the dead
>> rose
>> from their graves to new life.
>
>Wow.... just one contradiction after the other. Just take your pick of
>which one fits your agenda. ;-)
We Catholics believe all the bible, not just parts.
>> The goats are those that didn't listen to God and go straight to hell.
>> The sheep did and go to heaven via purification.
>What "purification?" Your Popes came up with some really profitable and
>scary crap to control and fleece the gullible.
It's also in scripture. You don't know that, do you.
Patrick
>>> Bible makes it clear dead are conscious of nothing at all. Ec 9:5 No
>>> purgatory dreamed up by some Pope.
>>
>> Perhaps you should read the New Testament where Peter
>> asked Jesus if he could set up tents for a couple
>> of "dead guys" who met Him on a mountain.......
> So Ec lied?
Nope.
> Another biblical contradiction?
If that is what you want to think.
> Suddenly when they started the NT there were the living dead?
Nope.
Resurection -- ever hear of it?
What about Lazarus?
> Direct me to the scriptures describing the living dead.
Read Matthew:
After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and led them
up a high mountain by themselves.
2
3 And he was transfigured before them; his face shone like the sun and his
clothes became white as light.
3
4 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him.
4
Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, "Lord, it is good that we are here. If
you wish, I will make three tents 5 here, one for you, one for Moses, and
one for Elijah."
5
While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud cast a shadow over them,
6 then from the cloud came a voice that said, "This is my beloved Son, with
whom I am well pleased; listen to him."
vince garcia
>
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 05:19:55 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
> >> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
> >> doctrine.
>
> >The authority is the scripture, which the RCC perverts, denies or
> >contradicts on some issues. I gave you one example.
>
> Your example does not hold water.
Of course it does. At the point that the Bible ceases to be the supreme
authority by which God's will is revealed, you now have a religion that
is open to change with the winds of public opinion, as we see happen
with the mainline denominations that started out good--adhering to
scripture--but now tout gay marriage and other liberal viewpoints.
God also says He exalts His word above His own name--not that He exalts
man's oral tradition above His name! That is as high a recommendation of
scripture as the final court of arbitration.
And peter confirms the scripture is "more sure" than his own oral
tradition of what happened on the holy mount!
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him
in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that
ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the
day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [the prophesies of
SCRIPTURE as he goes on to say]
So when the RCC claims tradition is equal to scripture, God Himself does
not afffirm that, but actually elevates the scripture above His own
name.
Don't get no better than that
The written word is only a partial record of
> everything Jesus said and did. John 21:25. Now, the gospels were firstly not a
> record of what Jesus said and did as they are a record of what other people said
> that Jesus said and did. This is evident in that the gospels were not
> "published" until 30-60 years after Christ, only John being the Apostle that
> personally met Jesus. And the NT scripture was not canonized until the 4th
> century.
>
> This means that everything we read today originated as Holy Tradition, or the
> verbal word rather than the written word, and existed for 300 years before
> canonization.
>
> >Another example would be mandating preistly celebacy when even
> >Paul--whom they appeal to--said bishops MUST be the husband of one wife;
> >and Paul himself never REQUIRED any minister or bishop to be unmarried.
>
> Neither Jesus, Paul or John were married.
You're wrong. Jesus, no. John, perhaps. Paul definitely (at some point,
anyway, because he was a member of the sanhedrin, and you had to be
married to be a part of it it)
But in no way does an apostle's being single translate into an ungodly
regulation that most priests MUST be unmarried. That actually
contradicts what the NT does say.
And be careful with the words "must"
> and "required". Paul was saying "NO divorced, no concubines, no one from
> prison".
MUST is in the verse paul wrote, duke. Argue with him, not me.
>
> >> >> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
> >> >> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
> >> >> etc.
>
> >> >Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
> >> >there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
>
> >> Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. I am always amused at the way
> >> some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
> >> things.
>
> >Bible's reasonably clear on it
>
> Words, not meaning. For instance, for the sinner, the "first death or
> judgment" is also the last.
>
> The bible also says that those that died in God's friendship were raised to
> **NEW LIFE** at the moment Jesus died. No waiting for resurrection day for them
> according to your way of thinking.
I disagree
>
> >the Day of the
> >> >> Lord had already passed. However, the resurrection of the Lord had already
> >> >> taken place.
>
> >> >I honestly don't know how you're getting that. that's not a view taught
> >> >by the RCC that I've ever heard. Can you give me a reference?
>
> >> Which part?
>
> >The part about you getting your perfected physical body as soon as you
> >get to heaven. The RCC i'm sure does not teach this.
>
> How does anybody know FOR SURE?
scripture. So i guess you're admitting this is not a position of the
RCC, but your own.
What difference does it make? God has a plan
> whether we know what it is or not. But I believe we will be glorified as Jesus
> is glorified. He was raised to new life showing us that we would to. And he
> showed us with God in heaven after.
>
> I'd much rather go that way rather than think of a great "war on horseback" some
> few to billions of years in the future.
Fine, except no one but you thinks the dead get a physical body prior to
THE resurrection in the future. Your own church certainly does not teach
that. I think they might even rebuke you for this belief of yours
>
> >> >But not the lake of fire, which gets filled at the last judgment
> >> I submit that the first judgment (particular Heb 9:27) is the last judgment for
> >> those relegated to hell at death.
>
> >Well, the RCC position is that there is a speicific judgment at death,
> >then go to a bad place for the sinner, then the general judgment comes
> >at the end of time, and you go to a worse place:
>
> >the Catholic Encyclopedia says "Few truths are more often or more
> >clearly proclaimed in Scripture than that of the general judgment".
> >When the individual dies, general judgment holds that the person's final
> >dispensation will await the general judgment of the dead at the end of
> >the world, rather than be judged immediately.
>
> Sounds more like the friends of God hang around purgatory and the damned go
> direct to hell. What does it matter for the damned? Or maybe it means that we
> all hang around the grave until resurrection day, all get the general judgment
> with the damned going straight to satanville, and the friends of God exposed for
> their sinfulness, purified, and on to heaven.
>
> It still says heaven, hell, and purgatory. For those in the grave know nothing.
>
> > And further, that the last judgment (general
> >> Rev 21:27) is only for the saved where they stand face to face with their
> >> sinfulness in purgatory.
no--read matt 25:35-41
>
> >Not what the catholic encyclopedia says
>
> My disagreement is with your analysis. I gave you an equally accurate rendition
> above. It just doesn't matter to us as we make our path on this earth and it is
> only for God to handle the rest.
>
> >> >What we CAN seem to say with reasonable certainty is that the RCC view
> >> >of purgatory does not hold up to scripture, in that it is a prolonged
> >> >process that can take centuries, with prayers and alms for the dead all
> >> >that time helping those there get out. The Bible really does not affirm
> >> >those ideas
>
> >> Of course it does. The bible clearly says about a purging:
>
> >> Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
> >> Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
> >> Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
> >> Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
> >>
> >> 1Cor 3:13
> >> 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.
> >> It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's
> >> work.
>
> >See how weak the argument is? Those verses don't make the point at all,
> >and are the best you can do to try and force the point to be made.
> >That's what happens when you try and teach purgatory.
>
> See how STRONG that is. These verses says that we must be purified before we
> can stand before God. The damned are gone to hell. And we are cleaned.
And i just showed you where JESUS said we're cleaned by THE WORD, not
purgatory, and you rejected it.
This the problem with the RCC: reject what scripture says, and appeal to
its own authority
Being captive in a holding tank does not equate to purgatory. Angels are
locked up in the pit--are they in purgatory, or simply held captive?
>
> I'll stick with heaven, hell, and purification.
>
> >I don't consider intertestamental books to be fully inspired,* so i
> >don't need to reconcile evangelical theology with them...tho I actually
> >could if i DID need to.
>
> It doesn't matter what you and I think. All that matters is what God does,
> regardless of our way of pretend-viewing.
>
> >* Here's just one reason the apocrypha is not fully inspired: In the
> >apocrypha, the ark of the covenant was said to be hidden by jeremiah on
> >mt Nebo until the end of the age, when it would be found again
>
> Now there's a biggie. So VG "doesn't consider" the Apocapha to be inspired
> because the Jews had a problem with them because they were written in Greece
> rather than the Holy Land.
among other resasons, tho I don't say they were written in greece.
Their problem is that errors can be shown to exist in some of those
supposedly inerrant works, so oi can accept they may be PARTIALLY
inspired, but certainly not fully inspired, and thus canonical
You can't have the apocrypha contradict what jeremiah says, and have the
apocrypha be equally scripture
>
> >Well, just compare that thought to the REAL scripture of jeremiah 3:16,
> >and you'll see the apocrypha has errors, and thus is not infallible.
>
> All scripture has literal errors - OT, NT, Gospels, Letters. Not every word in
> the bible is literally true, except for God's word regarding our souls and his
> plans for the salvation thereof.
The bible is always true when it speaks prophetically, and jeremiah
prophesises the ark will never be found or visited, while the apocrypha
says it will be. (which is a common desire of the jews, and many
deceived Christians, to this day)
The apocrypha (that part of it, anyway) is thus shown to be fallible,
and thus not scripture
>
> >> Interesting. I thought Protestants thought we already were in the kingdom of
> >> God.
> >Preterists do. I'm not one.
>
> I don't now what they are.
Guys who think all biblical prophesies of the end times were fulfilled
in the 1st century. See pastor dave
>
> >>But not that it's heaven. We Catholics never talk about such a thing.
> >> Nobody knows.
>
> >> I would think that Jesus tasting death for every man would put us in the kingdom
> >> of God. Jesus is glorified, and raised to the Father, and we are buried with
> >> him to sin in baptism in hopes of following him to the Father.
>
> >Not in hope--but of absolute assurance!
>
> And Heb 10:26-27 says that if we keep on sinning after learning of Christ (and
> I'll assume baptism) then the only thing left for us are the fires of hell.
Talking about willful, unrepentant mortal sin, to use catholic terms;
not sins comitted in weakness as the person continues TRYING to walk
forward in Christ
>
> Of course, we will get that removed in purgatory if we are judged saved. Right??
probably not, but possibly. That's the best one can speculate, and be
honest with what the scripture MOGHT imply but certainly not state
clearly.
>
> >These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son
> >of God; that ye MAY KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may
> >believe on the name of the Son of God.
>
> Does "believe on" mandate absolute following in his steps?
no. That would equal mankind achiveing perfection thru its own efforts
in a flesh body paul says will always be corrupt with sin.
yeah. That's what i'm saying. But there is NO chance a pagan 'adult' can
be saved withoput accepting the gospel. Paul is clear on that.
He also says babies of unbelievers are "unclean," so you must deal with
that
>
> >For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin
> >revived, and I died.
> >Even paul admits it was only after he was old enough to know right from
> >wrong did he enter a state of condemed sinner
>
> Exactly. But scripture still says we are born with a sin nature like we are
> with 10 fingers and 10 toes. And according to scripture, that is removed in
> baptism.
nope. I guarantee you still have a sin nature. I guarantee the pedophile
priests out there also still have sin natures too
>
> >> Certainly an adult who submits to baptism has
> >> attained a desire via knowledge. Catholics do the same in Confirmation where
> >> youth previous receiving John's baptism at birth now make their own baptismal
> >> promises as one mature enough to know what he's doing.
>
> Good no comment.
don't think i have an argument with that. The catholic in confirmation
still needs to understand the gospel well enough to know what he's
accepting or rejecting, i might note
>
> >> > Paul clearly indicates they
> >> >must hear/receive Christ to be saved, the RCC says they don't have to,
> >> >but can cooperate with the inner grace of God and die in a state of
> >> >grace.
> >>
> >> Why "must",
> >cuz paul says
>
> But the big guy, Jesus, said he gives us a new command - that we love one
> another as he loves us. John 13:34. And a muslim is God's creation also. So
> infants are baptized into God's grace per John 3:5-7. If they die without
> baptism, they await the resurrection like the rest of us.
You are expressing New Age thinking. God does not accept those who do
not accept the invitation and come through conscious receipt of the
gospel. Paul is very clear on that. You are contradicting paul with
emotional appeals
>
> >>but instead "do"? As far as dying in the state of grace, 1 John
> >> 1:8-10 pretty much eliminates that.
>
> >Your argument is with the RCC then; that's their doctrine, not mine
>
> No, it's not.
>
> >> >FOOEY, as my jewish friend rob would say
> >> I agree, FOOEY as far as dying in the state of grace. Only God knows.
>
> Another great no response.
I did respond, and say FOOEY. The notion you're advocating contradicts
scripture
>
> >> >> Yes, of course, and why send the infants to burn in hell because they died sans
> >> >> baptism?
> >> >Based on deut 1:39, i would say they go to heaven.
> >
> >> Deut is for Jews. Christ is for Christians, where the covenant is written on
> >> the heart and not on stone tablets.
>
> >ok...kinda leaves the sincere moslem out of it, huh?
>
> Only God knows.
I know too based on romans 10
so? Good deeds can't save you. Faith and grace save you. Or you must
reject paul as contradictibng Jesus here if what you think He is saying
is true
>
> >> After all, they are God's children
> >> also.
> >They are children of adam. And they can go to heaven or hell based on
> >their receipt or non-receipt of the gospel
>
> Actually, I'll leave this one in the hands of God.
>
> >> >See the parable in matt 22 about the wedding garment handed out at the
> >> >gate (Christ), where a guy who did not come thru that gate and get the
> >> >garment was thrown out even though he was invited in with the rest!
>
> >> Nice parable about God's invitation, but not every non-Christian worships satan.
>
> >Sure they do. Perhaps not knowingly, but a sincere moslem is still
> >following a religion that has a demonic spirit behind it.
>
> Muslims, Jews, and Christians all call Abraham Father of their religion.
so? Abraham can't save you. Only faith in christ can
>
> We see in scripture that the children of Adam, the Jews, were raised to **NEW
> LIFE** when Christ died on the cross. Why not Muslims and atheists IF God so
> decides?
>
> >The HOLY Spirit is not the spirit that invented Islam, Hinduism,
> >Atheism, rabinnic judaism, Shintoism, Buddhism, and so on. SATAN is the
> >guiding influence behind ALL other religions:
>
> You are in serious need of reading Mat 27:51+ and rethinking your position.
That's the same argument my christ-rejecting jewish friend rob gives me.
But he's going to hell because he thinks his good works will save him,
based on the verses you're misusing as he does.
The fact that a reform jew thinks this is how you get to heaven should
give you pause to rethink your position
duke
wrote:
>duke wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 05:19:55 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
>> >> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
>> >> doctrine.
>> >The authority is the scripture, which the RCC perverts, denies or
>> >contradicts on some issues. I gave you one example.
>> Your example does not hold water.
>Of course it does. At the point that the Bible ceases to be the supreme
>authority by which God's will is revealed, you now have a religion that
>is open to change with the winds of public opinion, as we see happen
>with the mainline denominations that started out good--adhering to
>scripture--but now tout gay marriage and other liberal viewpoints.
Begging your pardon. The RCC did not change anything. The Protestants didn't
change anything. But the protest_ers did elect to not follow much of what Jesus
said and did.
Those that promote gay marriage are flat out denying scripture.
>God also says He exalts His word above His own name--not that He exalts
>man's oral tradition above His name! That is as high a recommendation of
>scripture as the final court of arbitration.
>And peter confirms the scripture is "more sure" than his own oral
>tradition of what happened on the holy mount!
>18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him
>in the holy mount.
>19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that
>ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the
>day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [the prophesies of
>SCRIPTURE as he goes on to say]
>So when the RCC claims tradition is equal to scripture, God Himself does
>not afffirm that, but actually elevates the scripture above His own
>name.
And where do you think the written word comes from but Holy Tradition.
Until the 4th century, there was no canon scripture. And the gospels were
written 30-60 years after the cross.
>> Neither Jesus, Paul or John were married.
>You're wrong. Jesus, no. John, perhaps. Paul definitely (at some point,
>anyway, because he was a member of the sanhedrin, and you had to be
>married to be a part of it it)
Oops, I think that's Peter, John, and Jesus.
>But in no way does an apostle's being single translate into an ungodly
>regulation that most priests MUST be unmarried. That actually
>contradicts what the NT does say.
It's a personal discipline elected by the priesthood for the good of the kingdom
of God in accordance with Mat 19:12.
> And be careful with the words "must"
>> and "required". Paul was saying "NO divorced, no concubines, no one from
>> prison".
>MUST is in the verse paul wrote, duke. Argue with him, not me.
Fine, and maybe Paul was thinking as a Jew. So you argue with Paul over what
Jesus said in Mat 19.
>> >> Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. I am always amused at the way
>> >> some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
>> >> things.
>>
>> >Bible's reasonably clear on it
>>
>> Words, not meaning. For instance, for the sinner, the "first death or
>> judgment" is also the last.
>>
>> The bible also says that those that died in God's friendship were raised to
>> **NEW LIFE** at the moment Jesus died. No waiting for resurrection day for them
>> according to your way of thinking.
>I disagree
Cool.
>> >The part about you getting your perfected physical body as soon as you
>> >get to heaven. The RCC i'm sure does not teach this.
>>
>> How does anybody know FOR SURE?
>scripture. So i guess you're admitting this is not a position of the
>RCC, but your own.
>> What difference does it make? God has a plan
>> whether we know what it is or not. But I believe we will be glorified as Jesus
>> is glorified. He was raised to new life showing us that we would to. And he
>> showed us with God in heaven after.
>> I'd much rather go that way rather than think of a great "war on horseback" some
>> few to billions of years in the future.
>Fine, except no one but you thinks the dead get a physical body prior to
>THE resurrection in the future. Your own church certainly does not teach
>that. I think they might even rebuke you for this belief of yours
Who mandates future? The canonized saints are already there. Aren't you just
playing a little game thinking that all rise at one time? God takes us when he
wants to, when we are ready. Nobody knows one way or the other anyway.
>And i just showed you where JESUS said we're cleaned by THE WORD, not
>purgatory, and you rejected it.
>
>This the problem with the RCC: reject what scripture says, and appeal to
>its own authority
The Jews that rose when the veil split didn't know the Word. And furthermore,
the Word says the Sacrament of Confession. See Jesus on Easter afternoon in
John 20:22-23.
>> Abraham's bosom, yeah, right. Using your flawed line of thinking, how does
>> Abraham hold all those Jews? But no purgatory - right???
>Being captive in a holding tank does not equate to purgatory. Angels are
>locked up in the pit--are they in purgatory, or simply held captive?
Have you met an angel?
>> Now there's a biggie. So VG "doesn't consider" the Apocapha to be inspired
>> because the Jews had a problem with them because they were written in Greece
>> rather than the Holy Land.
>among other resasons, tho I don't say they were written in greece.
I'll stick with what the experts say.
>Their problem is that errors can be shown to exist in some of those
>supposedly inerrant works, so oi can accept they may be PARTIALLY
>inspired, but certainly not fully inspired, and thus canonical
Talk to the Jews, not me.
>> All scripture has literal errors - OT, NT, Gospels, Letters. Not every word in
>> the bible is literally true, except for God's word regarding our souls and his
>> plans for the salvation thereof.
>The bible is always true when it speaks prophetically, and jeremiah
>prophesises the ark will never be found or visited, while the apocrypha
>says it will be. (which is a common desire of the jews, and many
>deceived Christians, to this day)
Not Catholics. WE believe we are to go forward to do God's work and not worry
about lakes of fire and if the ark is found.
>The apocrypha (that part of it, anyway) is thus shown to be fallible,
>and thus not scripture
The only parts of the bible that are without error are God's plans for mankind
and the salvation of our souls. You look for the ark; I'll do God's work.
>> >>But not that it's heaven. We Catholics never talk about such a thing.
>> >> Nobody knows.
>> >> I would think that Jesus tasting death for every man would put us in the kingdom
>> >> of God. Jesus is glorified, and raised to the Father, and we are buried with
>> >> him to sin in baptism in hopes of following him to the Father.
>> >Not in hope--but of absolute assurance!
>> And Heb 10:26-27 says that if we keep on sinning after learning of Christ (and
>> I'll assume baptism) then the only thing left for us are the fires of hell.
>Talking about willful, unrepentant mortal sin, to use catholic terms;
>not sins comitted in weakness as the person continues TRYING to walk
>forward in Christ
I agree, but what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? What does the OT say?
It says our playing God rather than listening to God. Now, how many thousands
and thousands can we people do daily that constitute rejecting God and deciding
for ourselves right v wrong?
Those are not "weaknesses", but mortal, death-dealing sins.
>> Of course, we will get that removed in purgatory if we are judged saved. Right??
>probably not, but possibly. That's the best one can speculate, and be
>honest with what the scripture MOGHT imply but certainly not state
>clearly.
As I keep saying, we don't get a say so. Once we die, our fate is sealed by our
actions while in the flesh.
>> >These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son
>> >of God; that ye MAY KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may
>> >believe on the name of the Son of God.
>>
>> Does "believe on" mandate absolute following in his steps?
>
>no. That would equal mankind achiveing perfection thru its own efforts
>in a flesh body paul says will always be corrupt with sin.
Forget Paul saying. God said.
>> >> >> Why would God restrict his love for his newborn creation that dies unbaptized?
>> >> >> He is unable to sin. But he still possesses the stain of original sin.
>> >> >Different issue. I'm talking about adults.
>> >> And I'm talking about both.
>> >You can't lump them together.
>> God doesn't treat mankind differently. An infant is unable to make a reasoned
>> decision, but an adult is.
>yeah. That's what i'm saying. But there is NO chance a pagan 'adult' can
>be saved withoput accepting the gospel. Paul is clear on that.
And Jesus said the Jews, muslims, atheists, hindus, etc that died in the
friendship of God at the time Jesus died on the cross were raised to new life.
And new life = salvation.
>> Exactly. But scripture still says we are born with a sin nature like we are
>> with 10 fingers and 10 toes. And according to scripture, that is removed in
>> baptism.
>nope. I guarantee you still have a sin nature. I guarantee the pedophile
>priests out there also still have sin natures too
Correction, I meant that our original sin is removed at baptism. We definitely
live out our lives with the sin nature which is removed in the place of
purification.
>> >> Certainly an adult who submits to baptism has
>> >> attained a desire via knowledge. Catholics do the same in Confirmation where
>> >> youth previous receiving John's baptism at birth now make their own baptismal
>> >> promises as one mature enough to know what he's doing.
>>
>> Good no comment.
>don't think i have an argument with that. The catholic in confirmation
>still needs to understand the gospel well enough to know what he's
>accepting or rejecting, i might note
WE call those the baptismal promises.
>> But the big guy, Jesus, said he gives us a new command - that we love one
>> another as he loves us. John 13:34. And a muslim is God's creation also. So
>> infants are baptized into God's grace per John 3:5-7. If they die without
>> baptism, they await the resurrection like the rest of us.
>You are expressing New Age thinking. God does not accept those who do
>not accept the invitation and come through conscious receipt of the
>gospel. Paul is very clear on that. You are contradicting paul with
>emotional appeals
Again, the Jews, et al, who died in the friendship of God and had no idea of the
gospel were raised to new life. I'll stick with the words of the Lord.
It's fully apparent both Jesus and Paul are in step with each other, but not us.
>> >> Deut is for Jews. Christ is for Christians, where the covenant is written on
>> >> the heart and not on stone tablets.
>> >ok...kinda leaves the sincere moslem out of it, huh?
>> Only God knows.
>I know too based on romans 10
A good muslim can be saved over a sinful Christian.
>so? Good deeds can't save you. Faith and grace save you. Or you must
>reject paul as contradictibng Jesus here if what you think He is saying
>is true
James 2:26 says that faith without deeds is dead faith.
>> We see in scripture that the children of Adam, the Jews, were raised to **NEW
>> LIFE** when Christ died on the cross. Why not Muslims and atheists IF God so
>> decides?
>> >The HOLY Spirit is not the spirit that invented Islam, Hinduism,
>> >Atheism, rabinnic judaism, Shintoism, Buddhism, and so on. SATAN is the
>> >guiding influence behind ALL other religions:
>> You are in serious need of reading Mat 27:51+ and rethinking your position.
>That's the same argument my christ-rejecting jewish friend rob gives me.
>But he's going to hell because he thinks his good works will save him,
>based on the verses you're misusing as he does.
I use the words of Jesus. You try to take Jesus out of Pauls words.
>The fact that a reform jew thinks this is how you get to heaven should
>give you pause to rethink your position
I'm more sure than ever.
Florence B. Nitengail
> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote .
>> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>>> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote
>
>>>> Bible makes it clear dead are conscious of nothing at all. Ec 9:5 No
>>>> purgatory dreamed up by some Pope.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you should read the New Testament where Peter
>>> asked Jesus if he could set up tents for a couple
>>> of "dead guys" who met Him on a mountain.......
>
>> So Ec lied?
>
> Nope.
Well one of the scribes did according to your claim.
>
>
>
>> Another biblical contradiction?
>
> If that is what you want to think.
It's right there..........
>
>
>
>> Suddenly when they started the NT there were the living dead?
>
> Nope.
> Resurection -- ever hear of it?
> What about Lazarus?
>
>
>
>> Direct me to the scriptures describing the living dead.
>
> Read Matthew:
> After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and led them
> up a high mountain by themselves.
> 3 And he was transfigured before them; his face shone like the sun and his
> clothes became white as light.
I don't see where the above is related.
>
> 3
>
> 4 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him.
Out of the blue they suddenly appeared? Where then did they go after coming
back to life?
>
> 4
>
> Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, "Lord, it is good that we are here. If
> you wish, I will make three tents 5 here, one for you, one for Moses, and
> one for Elijah."
And these corpses came to life as in "Night Of The Living Dead?"
Florence B. Nitengail
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:21:40 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
> We Catholics believe all the bible, not just parts.
Since when? The Pope makes any changes he wants in interpretation and you
all have no choice.
>
>>> The goats are those that didn't listen to God and go straight to hell.
>>> The sheep did and go to heaven via purification.
>
>>What "purification?" Your Popes came up with some really profitable and
>>scary crap to control and fleece the gullible.
>
> It's also in scripture. You don't know that, do you.
It's not there! ;-) Neither are rosary beads, nuns, black robes, fancy
hats, and all the other pomp.
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:g7e6k51kilkcbdol3...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:21:40 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>
>> We Catholics believe all the bible, not just parts.
>
>Since when? The Pope makes any changes he wants in interpretation and you
>all have no choice.
Not a chance. Somebody's feeding you some really bad information. The bible
was canonized in the 4th century and remains the same today.
>>>> The goats are those that didn't listen to God and go straight to hell.
>>>> The sheep did and go to heaven via purification.
>>
>>>What "purification?" Your Popes came up with some really profitable and
>>>scary crap to control and fleece the gullible.
>>
>> It's also in scripture. You don't know that, do you.
>It's not there! ;-) Neither are rosary beads, nuns, black robes, fancy
>hats, and all the other pomp.
Or 3-piece suits, fancy hairdos, expensive cars and big houses.
Patrick
>
> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
> news:YOadnQHKa5K_zt7W...@posted.localnet...
>> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote .
>>> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>>>> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote
>>
>>>>> Bible makes it clear dead are conscious of nothing at all. Ec 9:5 No
>>>>> purgatory dreamed up by some Pope.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you should read the New Testament where Peter
>>>> asked Jesus if he could set up tents for a couple
>>>> of "dead guys" who met Him on a mountain.......
>>
>>> So Ec lied?
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Well one of the scribes did according to your claim.
Which one?
>>> Another biblical contradiction?
>>
>> If that is what you want to think.
>
> It's right there..........
The Bible is nothing but a book, "inspired" by God, written by
man, interpreted and translated by other men, and finally
skewed by you.
Personally, I think you are the liar.
>>> Suddenly when they started the NT there were the living dead?
>>
>> Nope.
>> Resurection -- ever hear of it?
>> What about Lazarus?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Direct me to the scriptures describing the living dead.
I said: "NOPE."
What part of "NOPE" do you not understnad?
>> Read Matthew:
>> After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and led
>> them up a high mountain by themselves.
>> 3 And he was transfigured before them; his face shone like the sun and
>> his clothes became white as light.
>
> I don't see where the above is related.
It isn't yet.
Just as your words mean nothing by themselves.
Do you need a lesson in reading or comprehension?
>> 3
>> 4 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him.
>
> Out of the blue they suddenly appeared? Where then did they go after
> coming back to life?
I didn't read the next line yet.
Did you?
>> 4
>> Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, "Lord, it is good that we are here. If
>> you wish, I will make three tents 5 here, one for you, one for Moses, and
>> one for Elijah."
>
> And these corpses came to life as in "Night Of The Living Dead?"
Nope.
Patrick
news:4b4569f8$0$2431$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>
> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:g7e6k51kilkcbdol3...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:21:40 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>
>> We Catholics believe all the bible, not just parts.
>
> Since when? The Pope makes any changes he wants in interpretation and you
> all have no choice.
Since you have jumped right into a lie, perhaps
you would care to defend your stupid statement?
Patrick
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 22:51:54 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:g7e6k51kilkcbdol3...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:21:40 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> We Catholics believe all the bible, not just parts.
>>
>>Since when? The Pope makes any changes he wants in interpretation and you
>>all have no choice.
>
> Not a chance. Somebody's feeding you some really bad information. The
> bible
> was canonized in the 4th century and remains the same today.
>
>>>>> The goats are those that didn't listen to God and go straight to hell.
>>>>> The sheep did and go to heaven via purification.
>>>
>>>>What "purification?" Your Popes came up with some really profitable and
>>>>scary crap to control and fleece the gullible.
>>>
>>> It's also in scripture. You don't know that, do you.
>
>>It's not there! ;-) Neither are rosary beads, nuns, black robes, fancy
>>hats, and all the other pomp.
>
> Or 3-piece suits, fancy hairdos, expensive cars and big houses.
Gosh, can I get on this?
uhhhhhh......
Or Big Macs, computers, electricity, or desk lamps......
Ips-Switch
I guess the Pope will come up with machines to print his own money now that
they're paying out millions to those raped by priests. LOL!!!!
>
>
>
Florence B. Nitengail
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 22:51:54 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:g7e6k51kilkcbdol3...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:21:40 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> We Catholics believe all the bible, not just parts.
>>
>>Since when? The Pope makes any changes he wants in interpretation and you
>>all have no choice.
>
> Not a chance.
Then WHO interpreted it for the first Pope and who changed it later? Who
told that Pope it was OK to slaughter thousands of people during the
Inquisition? He obviously never read the bible for himself.
Somebody's feeding you some really bad information. The bible
> was canonized in the 4th century and remains the same today.
Canonized by who? Was it the Pope who had thousands slaughtered for
rejecting their rule?
>
>>>>> The goats are those that didn't listen to God and go straight to hell.
>>>>> The sheep did and go to heaven via purification.
>>>
>>>>What "purification?" Your Popes came up with some really profitable and
>>>>scary crap to control and fleece the gullible.
>>>
>>> It's also in scripture. You don't know that, do you.
>
>>It's not there! ;-) Neither are rosary beads, nuns, black robes, fancy
>>hats, and all the other pomp.
>
> Or 3-piece suits, fancy hairdos, expensive cars and big houses.
Right... yet your Pope dreamed them up to impress the masses and demand more
donations. Read the history of your corrupt church leaders.
Florence B. Nitengail
> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote in message
> news:4b4569f8$0$2431$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>>
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:g7e6k51kilkcbdol3...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:21:40 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> We Catholics believe all the bible, not just parts.
>>
>> Since when? The Pope makes any changes he wants in interpretation and
>> you all have no choice.
>
Which lie? The Pope himself now admits evolution happened. That the bible
story isn't to be taken literally. What else was changed? Is birth control
OK for those who can't use the rhythm method?
perhaps
> you would care to defend your stupid statement?
I just did...........
>
>
>
>
Florence B. Nitengail
> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote ..
>>
>> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>> news:YOadnQHKa5K_zt7W...@posted.localnet...
>>> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote .
>>>> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>>>>> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote
>>>
>>>>>> Bible makes it clear dead are conscious of nothing at all. Ec 9:5 No
>>>>>> purgatory dreamed up by some Pope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you should read the New Testament where Peter
>>>>> asked Jesus if he could set up tents for a couple
>>>>> of "dead guys" who met Him on a mountain.......
>>>
>>>> So Ec lied?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Well one of the scribes did according to your claim.
>
> Which one?
All those who contradicted each other right from Genesis.
>
>
>
>>>> Another biblical contradiction?
>>>
>>> If that is what you want to think.
>>
>> It's right there..........
>
> The Bible is nothing but a book, "inspired" by God,
And my messages are "inspired" by God. So?
....written by
> man, interpreted and translated by other men, and finally
> skewed by you.
> Personally, I think you are the liar.
Personally I think you never read the bible or wouldn't make such a baseless
accusation. Had you read it you would have come across them.
>
>
>
>>>> Suddenly when they started the NT there were the living dead?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>> Resurection -- ever hear of it?
>>> What about Lazarus?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Direct me to the scriptures describing the living dead.
>
> I said: "NOPE."
> What part of "NOPE" do you not understnad?
What part of "Direct me to the scriptures describing the living dead." do
you not understand?
>>
>> I don't see where the above is related.
>
> It isn't yet.
> Just as your words mean nothing by themselves.
> Do you need a lesson in reading or comprehension?
No but you obviously do. ;-)
>
>
>
>>> 3
>>> 4 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him.
>>
>> Out of the blue they suddenly appeared? Where then did they go after
>> coming back to life?
>
> I didn't read the next line yet.
> Did you?
It didn't say how long corpses last above ground...... the dead do not come
back any more than animals can talk - both bible absurdities.
>
>
>>> 4
>>> Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, "Lord, it is good that we are here.
>>> If you wish, I will make three tents 5 here, one for you, one for Moses,
>>> and one for Elijah."
>>
>> And these corpses came to life as in "Night Of The Living Dead?"
>
> Nope.
The dead are the dead..........the dead do not come back any more than
animals can talk - both bible absurdities. :-D
>
>
Patrick
>>>> We Catholics believe all the bible, not just parts.
>>>
>>> Since when? The Pope makes any changes he wants in interpretation and
>>> you all have no choice.
>>
>> Since you have jumped right into a lie,....
>
> Which lie? The Pope himself now admits evolution happened.
So?
Evolution and creation are not exclusive.
> That the bible story isn't to be taken literally.
None of the bible should be taken literally.
Except by fundies.
Catholics are not fundies.
Neither is the pope.
Patrick
>>> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>>>>> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> Bible makes it clear dead are conscious of nothing at all. Ec 9:5 No
>>>>>>> purgatory dreamed up by some Pope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps you should read the New Testament where Peter
>>>>>> asked Jesus if he could set up tents for a couple
>>>>>> of "dead guys" who met Him on a mountain.......
>>>>
>>>>> So Ec lied?
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Well one of the scribes did according to your claim.
>>
>> Which one?
>
> All those who contradicted each other right from Genesis.
Which ones?
Which "scribe" do you wish to claim is a liar?
>> The Bible is nothing but a book, "inspired" by God,
> ....written by
>> man, interpreted and translated by other men, and finally
>> skewed by you.
>> Personally, I think you are the liar.
>
> Personally I think you never read the bible or wouldn't make such a
> baseless accusation. Had you read it you would have come across them.
What?
Of course there seems to be contradictions.....
So what?
The Bible is nothing but a book, "inspired" by God,
....written by man, interpreted and translated by other men, and finally
skewed by you.
>>>>> Suddenly when they started the NT there were the living dead?
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>> Resurection -- ever hear of it?
>>>> What about Lazarus?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Direct me to the scriptures describing the living dead.
>>
>
>> I said: "NOPE."
>> What part of "NOPE" do you not understnad?
>
> What part of "Direct me to the scriptures describing the living dead." do
> you not understand?
There are no "living dead."
>> I didn't read the next line yet.
>> Did you?
>
> It didn't say how long corpses last above ground...... the dead do not
> come back any more than animals can talk - both bible absurdities.
Lazarus came back.
Moses came back.
duke
Sometimes one has to wonder what makes an atheist tick.
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:unjbk59gc2udu7qro...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 22:51:54 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:g7e6k51kilkcbdol3...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:21:40 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>>>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We Catholics believe all the bible, not just parts.
>>>
>>>Since when? The Pope makes any changes he wants in interpretation and you
>>>all have no choice.
>>
>> Not a chance.
>Then WHO interpreted it for the first Pope
Answer: Jesus Christ in their 1:1 meetings
> and who changed it later?
Answer: Nobody.
>Who
>told that Pope it was OK to slaughter thousands of people during the
>Inquisition? He obviously never read the bible for himself.
Slaughter?? Who slaughter? Thousands?
I read one document that suggested 95 million. Now the only problem there was
that it was centuries before the population itself of Europe even reached that
number. And that even precludes the black death which was so much worst that it
changed the social fabric of Europe.
>>Somebody's feeding you some really bad information. The bible
>> was canonized in the 4th century and remains the same today.
>Canonized by who? Was it the Pope who had thousands slaughtered for
>rejecting their rule?
Only if he lived another 700-1100 years.
>>>>>What "purification?" Your Popes came up with some really profitable and
>>>>>scary crap to control and fleece the gullible.
>>>> It's also in scripture. You don't know that, do you.
>>>It's not there! ;-) Neither are rosary beads, nuns, black robes, fancy
>>>hats, and all the other pomp.
>> Or 3-piece suits, fancy hairdos, expensive cars and big houses.
>Right... yet your Pope dreamed them up to impress the masses and demand more
>donations. Read the history of your corrupt church leaders.
You didn't.